ABM INDUSTRIES: Appeal From Cert. Denial in "Bucio" Suit Pending----------------------------------------------------------------An appeal from the class certification denial in Bucio caseremains pending, according to ABM Industries Incorporated'sMarch 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities andExchange Commission for the quarter ended January 31, 2013.

The Bucio case is a purported class action involving allegationsthat the Company failed to track work time and provide breaks. OnApril 19, 2011, the trial court held a hearing on plaintiffs'motion to certify the class. At the conclusion of that hearing,the trial court denied plaintiffs' motion to certify the class.On May 11, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsider,which was denied. The plaintiffs have appealed the classcertification issues. The trial court stayed the underlyinglawsuit pending the decision in the appeal. On August 30, 2012,the plaintiffs filed their appellate brief on the classcertification issues. The Company filed its responsive brief onNovember 15, 2012.

The Company expects to prevail in the ongoing case. However, aslitigation is inherently unpredictable, there can be no assurancein this regard. If the plaintiffs in one or more of these cases,or other cases, do prevail, the results may have a material effecton the Company's financial position or cash flows.

Based in New York, ABM Industries Incorporated is a provider ofend-to-end integrated facility solutions services to thousands ofcommercial, governmental, industrial, institutional, retail, andresidential facilities located primarily throughout the UnitedStates. The Company was reincorporated in Delaware in 1985, asthe successor to a business founded in California in 1909.

ABM INDUSTRIES: Atty. Fees in "Augustus" Suit Reduced to $4.5MM---------------------------------------------------------------The Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angelesreduced a fee motion that originally sought attorneys' fees toapproximately $4.5 million, according to ABM IndustriesIncorporated's March 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter endedJanuary 31, 2013.

The Augustus case is a certified class action involvingallegations that the Company violated certain state laws relatingto rest breaks. On February 8, 2012, the plaintiffs filed amotion for summary judgment on the rest break claim, which soughtdamages in the amount of $103.1 million, and the Company filed amotion for decertification of the class. On July 6, 2012, theSuperior Court of California, Los Angeles County (the "SuperiorCourt") heard plaintiffs' motion for damages on the rest breakclaim and the Company's motion to decertify the class. OnJuly 31, 2012, the Superior Court denied the Company's motion andentered judgment in favor of plaintiffs in the amount ofapproximately $89.7 million. This amount did not includeplaintiffs' attorneys' fees. The Company filed a notice of appealon August 29, 2012. The plaintiffs filed three separate motionsfor attorneys' fees. One motion sought attorneys' fees from thecommon fund. The common fund refers to the approximately $89.7million judgment entered in favor of the plaintiffs. The othertwo motions sought attorneys' fees from the Company in anaggregate amount of approximately $12.4 million. On October 12,2012, the Company filed oppositions to the two fee motions seekingattorney's fees from the Company.

On January 14, 2013, the Superior Court heard all three feemotions. It granted plaintiffs' fee motion with respect to thecommon fund in full. The Superior Court denied one fee motion inits entirety and reduced the other fee motion that originallysought attorneys' fees to approximately $4.5 million. This $4.5million is included in the range of loss for all reasonablypossible losses. The Company strongly disagrees with thedecisions of the Superior Court both with respect to theunderlying case and with respect to the award of attorneys' feesand costs. The Company firmly believes that it has complied withapplicable law.

Based in New York, ABM Industries Incorporated is a provider ofend-to-end integrated facility solutions services to thousands ofcommercial, governmental, industrial, institutional, retail, andresidential facilities located primarily throughout the UnitedStates. The Company was reincorporated in Delaware in 1985, asthe successor to a business founded in California in 1909.

The Court gives its preliminary approval to the SettlementAgreement, subject to a hearing on the final approval of thesettlement on behalf of the Class that was certified by the Courton March 25, 2011:

All persons and entities who reside in the United States who have purchased, and have not returned for refund, a new Acer notebook computer from Acer or an Acer Authorized Reseller, not for resale, that came pre-installed with a Microsoft(R) Windows Vista Home Premium, Business, or Ultimate operating system, and contained 1 GB of Random Access Memory or less as shared memory for both the system and graphics.

Notice to class members will commence no later than 14 days afterthe entry of the Order. Commencing on or before the Notice Date,(i) the Defendant will spend $20,000 for static (no rich media),black and white Banner Advertisement, and (ii) the Defendant willspend up to $80,000 in online advertising via Google Adwordsand/or similar services provided on Bing, MSN and/or Yahoo topurchase the following phrases: "Acer Slow;" "Acer Freeze;" "AcerLock up;" "Acer Crash;" "Acer Memory Settlement," and "Acer RAMSettlement." This advertising will end at the earlier of when the$80,000 is exhausted or upon the deadline to object or opt-out.

On or before the Notice Date, the Parties will announce thesettlement via a jointly approved press release that isdistributed to national media outlets.

The Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees, costs and incentiveawards must be filed on or before July 9, 2013 (75 days after theNotice Date).

Class Members have until July 14, 2013 (90 days after the NoticeDate) to file claims, opt-out or exclude themselves, file a Noticeof Intent to Appear at the Fairness Hearing, object to theSettlement Agreement or respond to the Plaintiffs' motion forattorneys' fees and costs.

The Plaintiffs must file their motion for final approval of theSettlement Agreement on or before August 8, 2013 (105 days afterthe Notice Date).

The Fairness Hearing will be held on October 4, 2013, at 9:00 a.m.

A copy of the District Court's April 11, 2013 Order is availableat http://is.gd/JdgU1cfrom Leagle.com.

ADVOCAT INC: Awaits Certification Ruling in FLSA Violations Suit----------------------------------------------------------------Advocat Inc. is awaiting a court decision on the plaintiffs'motion for conditional certification of a nationwide class of allof its hourly employees, according to the Company's March 7, 2013,Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commissionfor the year ended December 31, 2012.

In December 2011 and June 2012, two purported collective actioncomplaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the MiddleDistrict of Tennessee and the U.S. District Court for the WesternDistrict of Arkansas, respectively, against the Company andcertain of its subsidiaries. The complaints allege that thedefendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and seekunpaid overtime wages. The Middle Tennessee action was resolvedby settlement and dismissed in 2012. The Plaintiffs in theArkansas action have moved for conditional certification of anationwide class of all of the Company's hourly employees. TheCompany will defend the lawsuit vigorously.

The Company says it cannot currently predict with certainty theultimate impact of any of the cases on its financial condition,cash flows or results of operations. The Company's reserve forprofessional liability expenses does not include any amounts forthe collective actions, the purported class action against GarlandNursing & Rehabilitation Center (the "Facility") or the lawsuitfiled against the Company's directors. An unfavorable outcome inany of these lawsuits or any of the Company's professionalliability actions, any regulatory action, any investigation orlawsuit alleging violations of fraud and abuse laws or of elderlyabuse laws or any state or Federal False Claims Act case couldsubject the Company to fines, penalties and damages, includingexclusion from the Medicare or Medicaid programs, and could have amaterial adverse impact on the Company's financial condition, cashflows or results of operations.

Advocat Inc. -- http://www.advocatinc.com/-- provides long-term care services to nursing center patients in eight states,primarily in the Southeast and Southwest United States. TheCompany is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Brentwood,Tennessee.

ADVOCAT INC: Continues to Defend Class Action Suit in Arkansas--------------------------------------------------------------In January 2009, a purported class action complaint was filed inthe Circuit Court of Garland County, Arkansas, against AdvocatInc. and certain of its subsidiaries and Garland Nursing &Rehabilitation Center (the "Facility"). The complaint allegesthat the defendants breached their statutory and contractualobligations to the residents of the Facility over the past fiveyears. The lawsuit remains in its early stages and has not yetbeen certified by the court as a class action. The Companyintends to defend the lawsuit vigorously.

No further updates were reported in the Company's March 7, 2013,Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commissionfor the year ended December 31, 2012.

The Company says it cannot currently predict with certainty theultimate impact of any of the cases on its financial condition,cash flows or results of operations. The Company's reserve forprofessional liability expenses does not include any amounts forthe collective actions, the purported class action against theFacility or the lawsuit filed against the Company's directors. Anunfavorable outcome in any of these lawsuits or any of theCompany's professional liability actions, any regulatory action,any investigation or lawsuit alleging violations of fraud andabuse laws or of elderly abuse laws or any state or Federal FalseClaims Act case could subject the Company to fines, penalties anddamages, including exclusion from the Medicare or Medicaidprograms, and could have a material adverse impact on theCompany's financial condition, cash flows or results ofoperations.

Advocat Inc. -- http://www.advocatinc.com/-- provides long-term care services to nursing center patients in eight states,primarily in the Southeast and Southwest United States. TheCompany is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Brentwood,Tennessee.

ADVOCAT INC: Dismissed Suit Over Covington Proposals Refiled------------------------------------------------------------The dismissed class action lawsuit relating to a potentialstrategic transaction from Covington Investments, LLC, was refiledin Tennessee, according to Advocat Inc.'s March 7, 2013, Form 10-Kfiling with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for theyear ended December 31, 2012.

On May 16, 2012, a purported stockholder class action complaintwas filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District ofTennessee, against the Company's Board of Directors. This actionalleges that the Board of Directors breached its fiduciary dutiesto stockholders related to its response to certain expressions ofinterest in a potential strategic transaction from CovingtonInvestments, LLC ("Covington"). The complaint asserts that theBoard failed to negotiate or otherwise appropriately considerCovington's proposals.

In November, 2012, the lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice forlack of subject matter jurisdiction. The action was refiled inthe Chancery Court for Williamson County, Tennessee (21st JudicialDistrict) on November 30, 2012. The lawsuit remains in its earlystages and has not yet been certified by the court as a classaction. The Company intends to defend the matter vigorously.

The Company says it cannot currently predict with certainty theultimate impact of any of the cases on its financial condition,cash flows or results of operations. The Company's reserve forprofessional liability expenses does not include any amounts forthe collective actions, the purported class action against GarlandNursing & Rehabilitation Center (the "Facility") or the lawsuitfiled against the Company's directors. An unfavorable outcome inany of these lawsuits or any of the Company's professionalliability actions, any regulatory action, any investigation orlawsuit alleging violations of fraud and abuse laws or of elderlyabuse laws or any state or Federal False Claims Act case couldsubject the Company to fines, penalties and damages, includingexclusion from the Medicare or Medicaid programs, and could have amaterial adverse impact on the Company's financial condition, cashflows or results of operations.

Advocat Inc. -- http://www.advocatinc.com/-- provides long-term care services to nursing center patients in eight states,primarily in the Southeast and Southwest United States. TheCompany is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Brentwood,Tennessee.

AMERICAN REALTY: Unit Inks MOU to Settle Merger-Related Suit------------------------------------------------------------American Realty Capital Properties, Inc.'s subsidiary entered intoa memorandum of understanding in February 2013 to settle a merger-related lawsuit, according to the Company's March 7, 2013, Form 8-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On March 6, 2013, American Realty Capital Properties, Inc.("ARCP") announced the completion of ARCP's acquisition ofAmerican Realty Capital Trust III, Inc., a Maryland corporation("ARCT III"), pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of Merger, datedas of December 14, 2012, by and among ARCP, ARCT III, TigerAcquisition, LLC ("Merger Sub"), a Delaware limited liabilitycompany and a wholly owned subsidiary of ARCP, ARCT III'soperating partnership and ARCP's operating partnership.Substantially all of ARCT III's business is conducted throughAmerican Realty Capital Operating Partnership III, L.P. (the"OP").

Since the announcement of the Merger Agreement on December 17,2012, one putative class action lawsuit had been filed againstARCT III, the OP, the members of ARCT III's board of directors,ARCP, ARCP OP and certain subsidiaries of ARCP in the SupremeCourt for the State of New York. In February 2013, the partiesagreed to a memorandum of understanding regarding settlement ofall claims asserted on behalf of the alleged class of ARCT III'sstockholders. In connection with the settlement contemplated bythat memorandum of understanding, the class action and all claimsasserted therein will be dismissed, subject to court approval.The proposed settlement terms required ARCT III to make certainadditional disclosures related to the Merger, which were includedin a Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC onFebruary 21, 2013. The memorandum of understanding also addedthat the parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement,which will be subject to customary conditions, includingconfirmatory discovery and court approval following notice to ARCTIII's stockholders. If the parties enter into a stipulation ofsettlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which the court willconsider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of thesettlement. There can be no assurance that the parties willultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement, that the courtwill approve any proposed settlement, or that any eventualsettlement will be under the same terms as those contemplated bythe memorandum of understanding.

ARCT III maintains directors and officers liability insurancewhich ARCT III believes should provide coverage to ARCT III andits officers and directors for most or all of any costs,settlements or judgments resulting from the lawsuit.

New York-based American Realty Capital Properties, Inc. --http://www.americanrealtycapitalproperties.com/or http://www.americanrealtycap.com/-- was incorporated in 2010 as a Maryland corporation that qualified as a real estate investmenttrust for U.S. federal income tax purposes. The Company wasformed to acquire and own single-tenant, freestanding commercialreal estate primarily subject to medium-term net leases with highcredit quality tenants.

AMWAY CANADA: Dentons Discusses Canadian Appeals Court Ruling-------------------------------------------------------------In an article available at InternationalLawOffice.com, Marina E.Sampson, an associate at Toronto, Canada-based law firm Dentons --marina.sampson@dentons.com -- reports that the complicatedinterplay between holding parties to an arbitration agreement andupholding the purpose and intent of legislation concerned withpublic order is not new in Canada. In 2011 the Supreme Court ofCanada decided Seidel v Telus Communications Inc.,(1) in which thecourt refused to enforce an arbitration agreement at the expenseof a class action proceeding. Seidel concerned the BritishColumbia Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act.(2)

More recently, on February 13, 2013, the Federal Court of Appealhanded down its decision in Murphy v Amway Canada Corporation.(3)In Amway the appeal court affirmed the Federal Court's decisionand declined jurisdiction to hear a motion to certify a classaction in respect of the Competition Act,(4) given the parties'binding arbitration agreement and class action waiver. In Amwayboth parties relied on Seidel to suit their purposes. At theircore, the issues and arguments in Amway echoed those of Seidel,although the Amway result was entirely different.

Facts

In Amway Kerry Murphy, an independent business owner anddistributor for Amway Canada, sought to commence a class actionproceeding against Amway Canada Corporation and Amway Global. Theappellant claimed that the respondent's business practicescontravened various provisions of the Competition Act and soughtC$15,000 in damages. In response to the appellant's proposedclass action, the respondent brought a motion seeking a stay andto compel arbitration, all based on the parties' contract (whichmirrored the respondent's contract with its distributorsgenerally). The contract contained an arbitration agreement,whereby the parties agreed to submit any possible claims toarbitration. The contract further contained a limited classaction waiver which applied if the amount of a party's individualclaim exceeded C$1,000.

The Federal Court granted the respondent's motion with costs, andthe class proceeding was stayed. The appeal to the Federal Courtof Appeal sought to set aside the stay in order to pursue theclass proceeding at the Federal Court.

Federal Court Motion Decision

On the respondent's motion to stay, the appellant invoked Seidelto argue that both the class action waiver and a resolution of thedispute through private arbitration was contrary to publicinterest. The appellant analogized the provisions of theCompetition Act at issue and the provisions of the ConsumerProtection Act relied on in Seidel.

The respondent also relied on Seidel, but only insofar as itdistinguished it from the case at hand. The respondent argued thatSeidel made clear that agreements to arbitrate must be enforcedexcept when there is clear legislative language to the contrary.In Seidel, such language existed.

The relevant sections of the Consumer Protection Act considered inSeidel may be summarized as follows:

Section 3 provides that any waiver of a party's rights, benefitsor protections under the Consumer Protection Act is void, exceptto the extent that the waiver or release is expressly permitted bythe Consumer Protection Act; and

Section 172 governs court actions with respect to consumertransactions for parties to contracts and for third parties,allowing for both declaratory and injunctive relief.

In Amway, while the appellant had argued that express languageexcluding arbitration can be found in Section 36 of theCompetition Act, the judge disagreed. In his view, while Section36 identified the Federal Court as a court of competentjurisdiction, it did not declare it to be the only competentforum. The judge found that the provisions of the Competition Actdid not prevent the parties from contracting out of thejurisdiction of the Federal Court through a valid arbitrationprocess. Therefore, the judge concluded that Seidel was aninappropriate analogy for this case.

Federal Court of Appeal Decision

The fundamental issue on appeal was whether a private claim fordamages brought under Section 36 of the Competition Act wasarbitrable.

The appellant founded its arguments largely on public interest instating that the private and confidential nature of arbitrationwas incompatible with the underlying objectives of the CompetitionAct -- namely, to promote an environment free of anti-competitivepractices. The appellant further argued that Seidel stood for theproposition that public interest concerns could displace anarbitration agreement.

The respondent submitted that to accept the appellant's argumentwould be to exclude from arbitration any claim under Section 36 ofthe Competition Act, under any circumstances. The respondentrelied on a number of recent Supreme Court of Canada decisionswhich demonstrated that the presence of public order concerns isnot determinative of whether arbitration is permitted. Therespondent maintained that there is no language in the CompetitionAct which excludes arbitration under Section 36. Without expresslanguage to the contrary, the respondent argued that arbitrationought to be upheld, all of which was supported by the principlesset out in Seidel.

The Federal Court of Appeal agreed with the respondent, findingthat the answer to the question of whether the claim wasarbitrable was found entirely in Seidel and undertaking a thoroughanalysis of that decision.

The appeal court considered in detail Justice Binnie's analysis ofSections 3 and 172 of the Consumer Protection Act in Seidel. InJustice Binnie's view, the intent of Section 3 was to invalidatean arbitration clause to the extent that it took away a right,benefit or protection conferred by the Consumer Protection Act.Justice Binnie then opined that the wording of Section 172 madeclear that declarations and injunctions, in a consumer context,were the preferred remedies to protect the interests of consumers,and that damages were often less important given the small amountsof money at issue. Justice Binnie further stated that Section 172stood out as a public interest remedy and should receive aninterpretation generous to consumers. He remarked that arbitrationwould not properly serve its policy objectives. Notably, JusticeBinnie stated that the true hallmarks of arbitration -- privacy,confidentiality, lack of precedential value, the avoidance ofpublicity -- were incompatible with the objectives of Section 172of the Consumer Protection Act.

Having thoroughly considered Justice Binnie's analysis in Seidel,the appeal court completely accepted it. The appellant's argumentthat competition law was so sacred so as to be incompatible witharbitration was rejected: competition law does not trumparbitration agreements.

The appellant's claim was indeed arbitrable. As the Supreme Courtof Canada had most recently made clear in Seidel, the court willrefuse to give effect to valid arbitration agreements only wherethere is clear statutory language that excludes arbitration.However, the claim in Amway, brought under Section 36 of theCompetition Act, was a private claim and must be sent toarbitration as the parties intended. The appeal was dismissed,with costs.

Comment

There may be those who viewed Seidel as a setback for arbitrationsin Canada, rejecting as it did arbitration in favor of a classaction proceeding. With the arrival of Amway, there may now bethose who view Seidel more favorably. As the Federal Court judgeon the stay motion emphasized, a long line of Canadian cases haveconfirmed Canada's status as an arbitration-friendly jurisdiction.Amway is simply one of the most recent.

The Federal Court of Appeal's analysis of the complicatedinterplay between holding parties to an arbitration agreement andupholding the purpose and intent of legislation concerned withpublic order brought the overarching principle from Seidel intosharper focus. In the absence of clear legislative language tothe contrary, agreements to arbitrate must be enforced. Amway inturn saw the enforcement of both a binding arbitration agreementand a class action waiver.

BARNES & NOBLE: Faces "Trimmer" FLSA Violations Suit in New York----------------------------------------------------------------Barnes & Noble, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit initiated bySteven Trimmer in New York, according to the Company'sMarch 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities andExchange Commission for the quarter ended January 26, 2013.

On January 25, 2013, Steven Trimmer (Trimmer), a former AssistantStore Manager (ASM) of the Company, filed a complaint, captionedTrimmer v. Barnes & Noble, in the United States District Court forthe Southern District of New York alleging violations of the FairLabor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL).Specifically, Trimmer alleges that he and other similarly situatedASMs were improperly classified as exempt from overtime and deniedovertime wages prior to July 1, 2010, when the Companyreclassified them as non-exempt. The complaint seeks to certify acollective action under the FLSA comprised of ASMs throughout thecountry employed from January 25, 2010, until July 1, 2010, and aclass action under the NYLL comprised of ASMs employed in New Yorkfrom January 25, 2007, until July 1, 2010. The Company isinvestigating the allegations and claims in the complaint.

Barnes & Noble, Inc. is a Delaware corporation based in New York.The Company derives the majority of its sales and net income fromits B&N Retail and B&N College stores.

The Company discovered that PIN pads in certain of its stores hadbeen tampered with to allow criminal access to card data and PINnumbers on credit and debit cards swiped through the terminals.Following public disclosure of this matter on October 24, 2012,the Company has been served with four putative class actioncomplaints (three in federal district court in the NorthernDistrict of Illinois and one in the Northern District ofCalifornia), each of which alleges on behalf of national and otherclasses of customers who swiped credit and debit cards in Barnes &Noble Retail stores common-law claims such as claims fornegligence, breach of contract and invasion of privacy, as well asstatutory claims such as violation of the Fair Credit ReportingAct, state data breach notification statutes, and state unfair anddeceptive practices statutes. The actions seek various forms ofrelief including damages, injunctive or equitable relief, multipleor punitive damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and interest. Theputative class action filed in California is in the process ofbeing transferred to the United States District Court for theNorthern District of Illinois, where the court has ordered itconsolidated with the three putative class actions filed in thatcourt. The plaintiffs have been ordered to file a singleconsolidated complaint in the case, which the Company expects willcontain allegations and prayers for relief substantively similarto those previously reported. The Company says it is possiblethat additional litigation arising out of this matter may be filedon behalf of customers, banks or other card issuers, payment cardcompanies or stockholders seeking damages allegedly arising out ofthis incident and other related relief.

The Company also has received inquiries related to this matterfrom the Federal Trade Commission and eight state attorneysgeneral, all of which have either been closed or have not had anyrecent activity, and the Company intends to cooperate with them iffurther activity arises. In addition, payment card companies andassociations may impose fines by reason of the tampering andfederal or state enforcement authorities may impose penalties orother remedies against the Company.

At this point the Company is unable to predict the developmentsin, outcome of, and economic and other consequences of pending orfuture litigation or state and federal inquiries related to thismatter.

Barnes & Noble, Inc. is a Delaware corporation based in New York.The Company derives the majority of its sales and net income fromits B&N Retail and B&N College stores.

On April 17, 2012, a complaint was filed in the Superior Court forthe State of California, County of Orange against the Company.The complaint is styled as a nationwide class action and includesa California state-wide subclass based on alleged cancellations oforders for HP TouchPad Tablets placed on the Company's Web site inAugust 2011. The lawsuit alleges claims for unfair businesspractices and false advertising under both New York and Californiastate law, violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act underCalifornia law, and breach of contract. The complaint demandsspecific performance of the alleged contracts to sell HP TouchPadTablets at a specified price, injunctive relief, and monetaryrelief, but does not specify an amount. The Company submitted itsinitial response to the complaint on May 18, 2012, and moved tocompel plaintiff to arbitrate his claims on an individual basispursuant to a contractual arbitration provision on May 25, 2012.The court denied the Company's motion to compel arbitration, andthe Company appealed that denial to the Ninth Circuit Court ofAppeals. The Company has also moved to dismiss the complaint andmoved to transfer the action to New York. The court granted theCompany's motion to stay on November 26, 2012, and the action hasbeen stayed pending resolution of the Company's appeal from thecourt's denial of its motion to compel arbitration.

Barnes & Noble, Inc. is a Delaware corporation based in New York.The Company derives the majority of its sales and net income fromits B&N Retail and B&N College stores.

On August 5, 2011, a purported class action complaint was filedagainst Barnes & Noble, Inc. and Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc.in the Superior Court for the State of California making thefollowing allegations against defendants with respect to salariedStore Managers at Barnes & Noble stores located in the State ofCalifornia from the period of August 5, 2007, to present: (1)failure to pay wages and overtime; (2) failure to pay for missedmeal and/or rest breaks; (3) waiting time penalties; (4) failureto pay minimum wage; (5) failure to provide reimbursement forbusiness expenses; and (6) failure to provide itemized wagestatements. The claims are generally derivative of the allegationthat these salaried managers were improperly classified as exemptfrom California's wage and hour laws. The complaint contains noallegations concerning the number of any such alleged violationsor the amount of recovery sought on behalf of the purported class.The Company was served with the complaint on August 11, 2011. OnAugust 30, 2011, the Company filed an answer in state court, andon August 31, 2011, it removed the action to federal courtpursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C.Section 1332(d). On October 28, 2011, the district court grantedthe plaintiff's motion to remand the action back to state court,over the Company's opposition. On November 7, 2011, the Companypetitioned the Ninth Circuit for an appeal of the district court'sremand order. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court'sremand order on May 18, 2012.

The parties are currently engaged in pre-certification discovery.The state court has not yet set a date for plaintiff's anticipatedmotion for class certification, and it has not yet set a trialdate.

Barnes & Noble, Inc. is a Delaware corporation based in New York.The Company derives the majority of its sales and net income fromits B&N Retail and B&N College stores.

On October 11, 2011, a complaint was filed in the Superior Courtfor the State of California, County of San Francisco against theCompany. The complaint is styled as a California state-wide classaction. It alleges violations of California Civil Code section1747.08 (the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971) due to theCompany's alleged improper requesting and recording of zip codesfrom California customers who used credit cards as payment. Thecomplaint was re-filed in the Superior Court for the State ofCalifornia, County of San Francisco on December 23, 2011, as aseparate action. The Summons and Complaint have not been servedon the Company for either action. On February 10, 2012, theplaintiff filed a request that the action filed in December bedismissed with prejudice.

Barnes & Noble, Inc. is a Delaware corporation based in New York.The Company derives the majority of its sales and net income fromits B&N Retail and B&N College stores.

CANADA: Class Action Over 2007 Transit Walk-Out Can Proceed-----------------------------------------------------------Trudie Mason, writing for CJAD Local News, reports that the courtshave authorized a class action lawsuit on behalf of the transitusers who were inconvenienced during a four-day walk-out bymaintenance workers.

Transit maintenance workers went on strike in 2007, causingsignificant disruptions to service. The lawsuit seeks C$50compensation per person. At the time, the transit authorityoffered angry passengers a maximum refund of C$3.50.

If the class action succeeds, the transit agency will be on thehook for C$5-million.

CANADA: Paliare Roland Discusses Manuge Suit Settlement Ruling--------------------------------------------------------------Margaret L. Waddell, Esq. -- marg.waddell@paliareroland.com --senior partner at Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP, writingfor Canadian Lawyer Magazine, reports that on April 4, the FederalCourt of Canada approved the massive settlement of a class actionin Manuge v. Canada, brought on behalf of disabled veterans of theCanadian Armed Forces. Since June 1976, the Federal Governmenthad been deducting Pension Act disability payments from theamounts payable to veterans under their Service Income SecurityInsurance Plan LTD benefit plan. The loss of this income had adevastating effect on some class members of limited means andresulted in a substantial hardship to others.

Although the practice had been ongoing since 1976, it was notuntil 2007 that any proceeding was brought to challenge the waythe federal government interpreted its obligations under the SISIPLTD plan. This is a strong testament to the beneficial effectclass action legislation has in providing access to justice forthe disadvantaged who, on their own, do not have the resources orfortitude to take on the colossal challenge and financial risk ofasserting a claim against the government.

The plaintiff was successful in having the action certified as aclass proceeding, despite a many-pronged defense to thecertification motion. Typical of most hotly contestedcertification motions, particularly those where a substantialamount is at stake and the issues are far-reaching, thecertification decision was appealed. On appeal the decision ofthe motions judge was reversed. This could have been a bitter endto the claim of more than 4,500 disabled veterans but classcounsel persevered, appealing to the Supreme Court of Canada,where the plaintiff ultimately prevailed.

In a strategically intelligent move, the parties proceeded with amotion to have the fundamental issue of how the terms of the SISIPLTD plan should be interpreted determined as a question of law.Federal Court Justice Robert Barnes concluded that the Crown waswrong to deduct pension benefits from the disabled veterans' SISIPbenefits:

"Giving effect to the SISIP offset of Pension Act disabilitybenefits wholly deprives disabled veterans of an importantfinancial award intended to compensate for disabling injuriessuffered in the service of Canadians. The SISIP offseteffectively defeats the Parliamentary intent that is inherent inthe Pension Act which is to provide modest financial solace todisabled CF members for their non-financial losses. . . . Thepractical consequence of the claimed offset is to substantiallyreduce or to extinguish the LTD coverage promised to members ofthe Class by the SISIP Policy with particularly harsh effect onthe most seriously disabled CF members who have been released fromactive service. That is an outcome that could not reasonably havebeen intended and I reject it unreserved."

Once the legal issue of interpretation of the pension contract hadbeen resolved, it was obvious to the parties the plaintiff wouldprevail at the common issues trial, and negotiations to settleensued. Here again, class counsel demonstrated their mettle. Thesettlement they achieved provides benefits not just to theoriginal class of about 4,500 veterans,; but to an expanded classof approximately 7,500 vets and their affected family members. Itincludes full compensation for the improper deductions back to1976, despite a strong limitations period argument in favor of theCrown for most of the extended class period.

The total present value of the settlement is estimated at morethan C$887 million, likely the fourth highest settlement inCanadian class actions. Furthermore, the Crown has agreed to stopthe practice of taking similar offsets from other federalfinancial support programs. Hence, this case demonstrates inspades the positive effect class action litigation can achieve.

Here, some of Canada's most vulnerable and deserving citizensgained access to the courts to challenge a long-standing andunlawful practice carried out by the Crown that was causing veryreal loss to the class. The claims were resolved in favor of notjust the original class, but a much expanded class, all of whomhad been treated in the same way. And the Crown has modified itspractices, voluntarily stopping taking similar deductions incomparable circumstances. Judicial economy, access to justice,and behavior modification have all been successfully achieved.

Class counsel deserve to be well compensated for this outcome.The success achieved as a result of the efforts of class counselshould be the primary factor against which the fees are measured,with due regard being had as well to all the other well-knownfactors enumerated in Parsons v. Canadian Red Cross Society,including the terms of the retainer agreement with therepresentative plaintiff, the risks assumed, the time spent, thecomplexity of the case, and the character and importance of thelitigation.

In Manuge, Justice Barnes was highly laudatory of class counseland the results achieved. He recognized:

* the skillful and tenacious advocacy of class counsel;

* the high quality of the legal work performed by class counselled to the favorable liability outcome;

* the terms of the settlement are equally impressive;

* the solutions adopted by the parties to resolve the class'entitlement to general damages, and the inclusion of survivingspouses and dependent children were novel and creative;

* class counsel spent more than 8,500 hours, worth over $3.2million, and will spend a great deal more time in completing thesettlement given the large and highly engaged class; and,

* the litigation was extremely important to the class.

Justice Barnes acknowledged, "These are results that would nothave been reasonably contemplated by anyone at the outset of thislitigation."

The risks class counsel undertook were enormous. This was not acase of "low hanging fruit." The outcome was far from certain.What was certain is the litigation would be hotly contested andongoing for many years. If the motion for determination of alegal issue had not been successful, the case would have beenlost. If there had been no such motion, then the litigation wouldhave been very complex and involve massive document production andpretrial maneuvering.

Justice Barnes noted: "Given the Defendant's adversarial approachto the motion to certify, counsel would have assumed that theywere exposing themselves to a financial risk measured in thepotential loss of professional time and disbursements of probablytens of millions of dollars."

However, at this point, after properly enumerating the factors totake into consideration, the court misdirected itself regardingthe assessment of what a reasonable fee should be in thesecircumstances.

Justice Barnes' decision was driven by his conclusion the effectof deducting legal fees from the settlement fund would negativelyimpact the recovery to the class. This is, of course, self-evident. Every litigant is deprived of some amount of theirrecovery in order to pay counsel for prosecuting the action ontheir behalf, unless the lawyer has agreed to do it pro bono.

In Manuge, counsel entered into a contingency fee agreement,agreeing to assume the risks of the litigation and all ongoingexpenses, and they prosecuted the claim to an exceptional result.They expected and deserved to be richly rewarded for their effortswhen the claim was successfully resolved.

In the ordinary course, a contingency fee in the range of 20 to 33per cent is not unusual. The fee is not driven by a simple hours-times-fee multiple, and it is intended to have the possible resultof a substantial premium. The contingency premium is an importantelement to the class action regime. Absent the potential for asubstantial fee, there would be little incentive for counsel totake on difficult cases. The risk of losing would be too great.

Class actions are sometimes lost. Unless counsel can look to thepossibility of making up the loss through the premiums gained in awinning case, they simply would not assume the risk, certainly notwhere the cases are highly complex, aggressively defended, anddrawn out. Why work without payment for years, while expendingtens of thousands of dollars, or more, on the costs of thelitigation, unless the return justifies the efforts?

Barnes failed to give proper weight to the contingency agreementfor the wrong reason. He said at the time it was made, theparties had no idea how the litigation would unfold. Which istrue, and is exactly the point. The contingency agreement shouldnever be looked at through the lens of the end result, but fromwhat the parties' realistic expectations were at the outset. Acontingency agreement should reward counsel who are able toinnovatively bring a case to swift and effective conclusion --which is better for both the class and the administration ofjustice.

In this case, counsel recognized the percentage fee called for intheir contingency agreement would have been unacceptably high,given the size of the settlement and the amount of work theyexpended to achieve it. They fairly sought a fee at a muchreduced percentage: only 7.5 per cent of the gross value of thesettlement. Without applying the percentage to the settlementamount, but only looking at a contingency fee of 7.5 per cent, onewould be hard-pressed to say it was unreasonable under anycircumstances.

The judge, however, disagreed. He said: "Cases that generate arecovery of a few million dollars may well justify a 25 per centto 30 per cent costs award. It is more difficult to support suchan approach where the award is in the hundreds of millions ofdollars."

He concluded a fee of approximately four per cent of grossrecovery was appropriate. With the greatest of respect, in myview this decision was misdirected, internally inconsistent, andwrong. If it is appropriate for class counsel to be paid 25 to 30per cent in a case where the risks are similar, the time expendedis similar, and the results are much smaller, there is nojustification for a substantially reduced percentage fee when therecovery is greater. Each class member's recovery is stillreduced by the same percentage, and all other factors are staticas well.

The parties agreed on a reasonable percentage at the outset and atthe end. In fact, at the settlement approval hearing, many classmembers confirmed that they agreed the fee sought was reasonable.

It would appear the judge simply found that the fee sought was toobig to chew. In my view, that is not an appropriateconsideration. If, on review of the factors in Parsons, thepercentage sought appears reasonable, then there is no reason notto apply it to the result, no matter how large or small the totalmay be.

In Manuge, the risks assumed were substantial and the resultsexceptional. Class counsel should have been rewarded accordingly.If fees are reduced arbitrarily simply because they are large,this could have a deleterious effect on future class actions. Theincentive to take difficult cases advocating for the systemicallydisadvantaged would be negatively impacted. There are few enoughcounsel prepared to undertake the risks of these cases, let's notdiscount the reward incentives that sustain the system justbecause in the exceptional case the fee seems large. Theexceptional case deserves an exceptional reward.

CEDARLANE NATURAL: Recalls O Organics Black Bean Enchiladas-----------------------------------------------------------Cedarlane Natural Foods, Inc., is voluntarily recalling onespecific lot of O Organics Black Bean Enchiladas because theycontain undeclared milk. People with an allergy or severesensitivity to milk run the risk of serious or life-threateningallergic reactions if they consume this product. Symptoms mayinclude itching, hives, wheezing, vomiting, anaphylaxis anddigestive problems, such as bloating, gas or diarrhea. Noillnesses have been reported to date.

The Class 1 recall only affects O Organics Black Bean Enchiladas 9oz. bearing the Best Before date of Oct 26 2013 packaged inprinted boxes and sold in Safeway, Carrs, Dominicks, Genuardi'sPak'N'Save, Pavilions, Randalls, Tom Thumb and Vons. The BestBefore Date are printed on the left side of the printed box.Pictures of the recalled products' labels are available at:

The products were distributed across the United States. No otherlots or products are affected.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that the wrongproduct was packed in to the O Organics Black Bean Enchilada boxand the presence of milk was not declared.

Consumers who have purchased the recalled product are urged toreturn it to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumerswith questions may contact Cedarlane Natural Foods, Inc. at 800826 3322.

CR ENGLAND: OOIDA Class Action Over Lease Agreement Ongoing-----------------------------------------------------------Sandi Soendker, writing for Land Line Magazine, reports thatdespite last month's final judgment from a federal judge in Utah,the 10-year court battle between truckers and a Salt Lake Citycarrier does not appear to be over yet.

On March 12, Judge Ted Stewart of the U.S. District Court for theDistrict of Utah entered final judgment in the class actionlawsuit of OOIDA v. C.R. England, awarding the class more than$1.3 million.

On April 5, CRE filed an appeal.

According to David Cohen, an attorney with The Cullen Law Firm,OOIDA's litigation counsel, because of CRE's latest appeal, therewill be no distribution of any monies until the appeal isconcluded. Mr. Cohen said the total number of class members wasapproximately 6,000. Of those, he said that approximately 1,000would be entitled to receive a cash award under the judgment.

OOIDA President Jim Johnston said the Association was set to filea cross-appeal, an appeal that, if won, could raise the amount ofthe final award.

Issues to be raised on cross appeal include the court's denial ofa statutory trust for escrow funds, its rejection of the 18percent interest rate for escrow funds unlawfully retained byEngland, and the court's refusal to award restitution forEngland's markups on tires, parts and fuel.

The appeal process is likely to take between a year and 18 months.

The class-action lawsuit was first filed in 2002 and went to trialin federal court in 2006. In 2007, Judge Stewart found C.R.England in violation of the federal Truth-in-Leasing regulations.He ruled that the lease agreement C.R. England used with itsowner-operators between 1998 and the summer of 2002 violated thefederal regulations. He ruled that C.R. England's "IndependentContractor Operating Agreement" violated the chargeback, forced-purchase and escrow provisions of the leasing regulations.

In the 2007 decision, the court also held that C.R. England'slease violated the escrow provisions of the leasing regulations,and specifically found that the motor carrier had improperlymanaged truckers' escrow accounts. The case has remained activethese past years due to lengthy court-ordered accounting of everyescrow fund managed by CRE.

DELOITTE TOUCHE: Escapes Longtop Securities Class Action--------------------------------------------------------Brian Mahoney, writing for Law360, reports that a New York federaljudge on April 8 tossed Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu CPA Ltd. as adefendant in a proposed class action accusing Hong Kong-basedfinancial services software developer Longtop FinancialTechnologies Ltd. of lying to investors and exaggerating the sizeof its profit margins. U.S. District Judge Shira A. Scheindlinsaid that lead plaintiff Danske Invest Management A/S had failedto sufficiently allege that Deloitte violated federal securitieslaws in signing off on Longtop accounts between June 2009 and May2011.

DOLLAR TREE: Judge Has Yet to Decide on Wage Class Action---------------------------------------------------------The Associated Press reports that nearly 6,300 Dollar Treeemployees are waiting to hear whether a federal judge in Norfolkcertifies a lawsuit over wages as a class action. The workersclaim they often worked through their unpaid half-hour lunchbreaks and are now seeking overtime for those hours.

"In an effort to provide low-cost merchandise to its customers andstill maximize profits, defendant Dollar Tree has engaged in apolicy, pattern or practice of requiring its thousands of hourlyassociates and assistant managers to work without pay, in severalways," the lawsuit says.

According to The Virginian-Pilot, U.S. District Judge RaymondJackson has granted conditional certification of the class.Before the judge makes a final decision, attorneys for both sideswill present additional evidence to help him determine whether theemployees' experiences, and the remedies for compensating them,share enough in common to allow them to move forward together.D.G. Pantazis Jr., an attorney for the employees, said he expectsa decision on that issue by this summer.

Tim Reid, a spokesman for Chesapeake-based Dollar Tree, said thecompany has a longstanding policy not to comment on pendinglitigation.

Dollar Tree has almost 82,000 employees in 48 states. In itsMarch annual report, the retailer lists eight pending lawsuits --including four class actions alleging federal wage-and-hourviolations -- as part of its discussion of legal proceedings thatcould have a financial impact on the company.

The case in Norfolk was originally filed in Kane County, Ill., bytwo Dollar Tree employees in November 2011. Dollar Tree succeededin getting the case transferred to Norfolk in June 2012.Thousands of additional employees could join the lawsuit, whichestimates that the retailer owes more than $5 million in unpaidcompensation.

ERA GROUP: Superior Offshore Suit Remains Pending in Delaware-------------------------------------------------------------The class action lawsuit commenced by Superior OffshoreInternational, Inc., remains pending in Delaware, according to EraGroup Inc.'s March 7, 2013, Form 10-K/A filing with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission for the year endedDecember 31, 2012.

On January 31, 2013, SEACOR Holdings Inc. ("SEACOR") completed thespin-off ("Spin-off") of the Company by means of a dividend toSEACOR's stockholders of all of the Company's issued andoutstanding common stock.

On June 12, 2009, a purported civil class action was filed againstSEACOR, Era Group Inc., Era Helicopters LLC and three otherdefendants (collectively, the "Defendants") in the U.S. DistrictCourt for the District of Delaware, Superior OffshoreInternational, Inc. v. Bristow Group Inc., et al., No. 09-CV-438(D. Del.). The Complaint alleged that the Defendants violatedfederal antitrust law by conspiring with each other to raise, fix,maintain or stabilize prices for offshore helicopter services inthe U.S. Gulf of Mexico during the period January 2001 to December2005. The purported class of plaintiffs included all directpurchasers of such services and the relief sought includedcompensatory damages and treble damages. On September 4, 2009,the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint. OnSeptember 14, 2010, the Court entered an order dismissing theComplaint. On September 28, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motionfor reconsideration and amendment and a motion for re-argument(the "Motions"). On November 30, 2010, the Court granted theMotions, amended the Court's September 14, 2010 Order to clarifythat the dismissal was without prejudice, permitted the filing ofan amended Complaint, and authorized limited discovery withrespect to the new allegations in the amended Complaint.

Following the completion of such limited discovery, onFebruary 11, 2011, the Defendants filed a motion for summaryjudgment to dismiss the amended Complaint with prejudice. On June23, 2011, the District Court granted summary judgment for theDefendants. On July 22, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a notice ofappeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. OnJuly 27, 2012, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed theDistrict Court's grant of summary judgment in favor of thedefendants. On August 9, 2011, Defendants moved for certainexcessive costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees under 28 U.S.C.Section 1927 (the "Fee Motion"). On October 9, 2012, the DistrictCourt denied the Fee Motion.

Era Group Inc. -- http://www.eragroupinc.com/-- was incorporated in 1999 in Delaware and is headquartered in Houston, Texas. TheCompany is one of the largest helicopter operators in the world.The Company also provides helicopters and related services tothird-party helicopter operators in other countries.

The cities of Warrenville, Oakbrook Terrace and Rockford and thevillages of Bedford Park, Oak Lawn, Orland Hills and Willowbrookfiled their 33-page complaint on April 5 in the U.S. DistrictCourt for the Northern District of Illinois. Among the nameddefendants are online travel companies Expedia, Travelocity,Hotwire, Priceline and Hotels.com.

The municipalities filed the class action to address what theycall "ongoing tax evasion" by the companies. They contend thecompanies market and sell hotel rooms in the state, but fail topay or remit taxes on the amount customers pay to stay in thoserooms.

"As stated, Defendants' business practices include chargingConsumers unitemized taxes and fees on each sale of Lodging. TheConsumer is led to believe Defendants are remitting the correctamount of Accommodations Tax to Plaintiffs. Defendants, however,are calculating the tax liability of the general public (andDefendants) based upon the Wholesale Rate Defendants paid theHotel for the room, not upon the Retail Rate that the Consumerpaid Defendants," the municipalities wrote in their complaint."As a result, the Accommodations Tax liabilities paid by thegeneral public and owed to Plaintiffs are underpaid/unpaid by theDefendants who unlawfully retain the difference.

"These practices deprive Plaintiffs and the Class the full amountsdue and owing to them from each sale of Lodging."

The cities contend the online companies, in failing to pay taxeson the full rates charged, maintain a competitive advantage.

"The lawsuit filed in Illinois seeks to even the playing field,"said Thomas K. Prindable of Clifford Law Offices PC, a Chicago lawfirm representing the plaintiffs.

"There needs to be greater transparency in exactly what thesecompanies are charging its online customers."

Paul A. O'Grady -- pogrady@pjmlaw.com -- of Peterson, Johnson &Murray SC in Chicago, John W. Crongeyer of Crongeyer Law Firm inAtlanta, and William Q. Bird and Kristen L. Beightol of Bird LawGroup in Atlanta also are representing the municipalities.

EXXONMOBIL: Mum on Class Action Over Pegasus Pipeline Oil Spill---------------------------------------------------------------ICIS reports that ExxonMobil on April 8 declined to comment on aclass-action lawsuit recently filed against the US energy giantafter the March 29 Pegasus pipeline rupture and oil spill thatforced the evacuation of 22 homes in Mayflower, Arkansas.

"We do not comment on legal matters," said company spokespersonKim Jordan.

Kathryn Chunn and Kimla Greene on Friday filed the complaint to USDistrict Court in the Eastern District of Arkansas on behalf ofthemselves and others similarly affected.

The lawsuit is seeking more than $5 million (EUR3.85 million) indamages.

"Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit to recover for a permanentdiminishment in property value for being located near the unsafeand defective pipeline on behalf of all property owners similarlysituated throughout the state of Arkansas who are in closeproximity to the Pegasus Pipeline," it added.

In its latest update on April 6, ExxonMobil estimated that 5,000bbl of oil was spilled in the incident, adding that a finalestimate will be released once the line has been repaired andrefilled.

The company said that much of the free-standing oil has beenrecovered, and most of the impacted soil has been removed from thesix homes impacted by the spill.

The main body of Lake Conway remains oil free, and there has beenno impact on the drinking water supply, ExxonMobil added.

On April 5, the Arkansas attorney general's office gave ExxonMobila deadline of April 10 to produce investigative reports,inspection documents and other information connected to theincident.

ExxonMobil also was issued an order from the US Department ofTransportation (DOT) that requires the company to take "necessarycorrective action to protect public, property and the environmentfrom potential hazards" associated with the incident, said theDOT's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration(PHMSA).

ExxonMobil must obtain written approval from the director ofPHMSA's southwest region before the Pegasus pipeline can return toservice.

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has categorized theincident as a major spill, and a number of federal, state andlocal agencies are assisting ExxonMobil with response efforts.

The cause of the spill is under investigation, the company hassaid.

GENESIS HEALTHCARE: High Court Dismisses "Symczyk" Class Suit-------------------------------------------------------------A divided United States Supreme Court tossed out a purported classaction lawsuit with only one member. The Supreme Court, in a 5-4decision, reversed a judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for theThird Circuit, ruling that the lawsuit was appropriately dismissedat the District Court level for lack of subject-matterjurisdiction.

In 2009, Laura Symczyk, a registered nurse at Pennypack Center inPhiladelphia, Pennsylvania, filed a complaint on behalf of herselfand "all other persons similarly situated" against her formeremployer, Genesis Healthcare Corporation.

She alleged that Genesis et al. violated the Fair Labor StandardsAct of 1938 by automatically deducting 30 minutes of time workedper shift for meal breaks for certain employees, even when theemployees performed compensable work during those breaks. Ms.Symczyk, who remained the sole plaintiff throughout theseproceedings, sought statutory damages for the alleged violations.

When Genesis et al. answered the complaint, they simultaneouslyserved upon Ms. Symczyk an offer of judgment under Federal Rule ofCivil Procedure 68. The offer included $7,500 for alleged unpaidwages, in addition to "such reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, andexpenses . . . as the Court may determine." Genesis et al.stipulated that if Ms. Symczyk did not accept the offer within 10days after service, the offer would be deemedwithdrawn.

After Ms. Symczyk failed to respond in the allotted time period,Genesis et al. filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Genesis et al. argued that because theyoffered Ms. Symczyk complete relief on her individual damagesclaim, she no longer possessed a personal stake in the outcome ofthe suit, rendering the action moot. Ms. Symczyk objected,arguing that Genesis et al. were inappropriately attempting to"pick off " the named plaintiff before the collective-actionprocess could unfold.

The District Court found that it was undisputed that no otherindividuals had joined Ms. Symczyk's suit and that the Rule 68offer of judgment fully satisfied her individual claim. Itconcluded that Genesis et al.'s Rule 68 offer of judgment mootedMs. Symczyk's suit, which it dismissed for lack of subject-matterjurisdiction.

The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed. It agreedthat no other potential plaintiff had opted into the suit, thatGenesis et al.'s offer fully satisfied Ms. Symczyk's individualclaim, and that, under its precedents, whether or not such anoffer is accepted, it generally moots a plaintiff's claim. Butthe Third Circuit nevertheless held that Ms. Symczyk's collectiveaction was not moot. It explained that calculated attempts bysome defendants to "pick off" named plaintiffs with strategic Rule68 offers before certification could short circuit the process,and, thereby, frustrate the goals of collective actions. TheThird Circuit determined that the case must be remanded in orderto allow Ms. Symczyk to seek "conditional certification" in theDistrict Court. If Ms. Symczyk were successful, the DistrictCourt was to relate the certification motion back to the date onwhich Ms. Symczyk filed her complaint.

Justice Clarence Thomas, who wrote the opinion for the majority,held that in the absence of any claimant's opting in, Ms.Symczyk's suit became moot when her individual claim became moot,because she lacked any personal interest in representing others inthis action. While the FLSA authorizes an aggrieved employee tobring an action on behalf of himself and "other employeessimilarly situated," the mere presence of collective-actionallegations in the complaint cannot save the suit from mootnessonce the individual claim is satisfied.

According to Justice Thomas, because Ms. Symczyk had no personalinterest in representing putative, unnamed claimants, nor anyother continuing interest that would preserve her suit frommootness, her suit was appropriately dismissed for lack ofsubject-matter jurisdiction.

Justice Elena Kagan filed a dissenting opinion, in which JusticesRuth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor joined.Justice Kagan held that Ms. Symczyk's failure to accept, or evenrespond, to Genesis's judgment is not a ground for declaring herindividual claim moot.

"An unaccepted settlement offer -- like any unaccepted contractoffer -- is a legal nullity, with no operative effect. As everyfirst-year law student learns, the recipient's rejection of anoffer 'leaves the matter as if no offer had ever been made,'"Judge Kagan said.

"After the offer lapsed, just as before, Symczyk possessed anunsatisfied claim, which the court could redress by awarding herdamages. As long as that remained true, Symczyk's claim was notmoot, and the District Court could not send her away empty-handed.

"So a friendly suggestion to the Third Circuit: Rethink yourmootness-by-unaccepted-offer theory. And a note to all othercourts of appeals: Don't try this at home."

The case is GENESIS HEALTHCARE CORP. ET AL. v. SYMCZYK CERTIORARITO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No.11-1059.

HANNAFORD BROS: Judge Denies Class Action Certification-------------------------------------------------------SC Magazine reports that a Maine judge has denied class-actioncertification to plaintiffs affected by the 2008 breach of theHannaford Bros. grocery chain. U.S. District Court judge D. BrockHornby ruled that the plaintiffs failed to prove how much in out-of-pocket expenses.

HOWREY LLP: Unsec. Creditor Can't Bring Class Action, Judge Says----------------------------------------------------------------Kurt Orzeck, writing for Law360, reports that a Californiabankruptcy judge ruled on April 8 that a Howrey LLP unsecuredcreditor cannot bring a class action in federal court to try tohold the firm's former equity security holders accountable for itsdownfall. Denying Howrey Claims LLC's motion, the judge said thecreditor hadn't established cause to modify the automatic stayprotecting Howrey from litigation while the firm is in bankruptcy,and hadn't established just cause for relief. The ruling is asetback for the creditor, which hoped a federal court would hearits allegations.

IMPAX LABORATORIES: Labaton Sucharow Files Class Action in Calif.-----------------------------------------------------------------Labaton Sucharow LLP on April 8 disclosed that it filed a classaction lawsuit on April 8, 2013 in the U.S. District Court for theNorthern District of California. The lawsuit was filed on behalfof persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired thepublicly-traded common stock of Impax Laboratories, Inc. betweenFebruary 25, 2011 and March 4, 2013, inclusive.

The action charges Impax and certain of its officers withviolations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The Complaintalleges that, throughout the Class Period, the Company made falseand misleading statements and concealed material informationregarding manufacturing deficiencies at the Company's Hayward,California manufacturing facility.

Impax is a specialty pharmaceutical company engaged in thedevelopment, manufacture, and marketing of bio-equivalentpharmaceutical products, referred to as generics, in addition tothe development of branded products. The complaint alleges that,during the Class Period, Impax concealed from shareholders that:(1) the Company failed to maintain proper quality control andmanufacturing practices at its Hayward facility in violation ofcurrent Good Manufacturing Practices; (2) the Company failed totake proper remedial actions to correct quality control issuesidentified by the FDA in prior inspections of the Haywardfacility; (3) the extent of the adverse effect that themanufacturing deficiencies at the Hayward facility could have onthe Company's ability to successfully launch its new branded drug,RYTARY(TM); and (4) as a result of the foregoing, Impax lacked areasonable basis for its positive statements about the Company andits outlook, including statements about its ability to launchRytary or a generic version of a drug called Concerta(R) in 2013.

The truth about Impax and its manufacturing practices was revealedon March 4, 2013. That day, Impax announced that the FDA hadcompleted an inspection of the Company's Hayward facility. Basedon its inspection, the FDA issued a new Form 483, which is a formused by the FDA to document and communicate deficiencies in acompany's quality system discovered during an onsite inspection.In the Form 483, the FDA cited twelve "observations," or problems,at the Hayward facility requiring remediation, including threerepeat manufacturing problems that had not been correctedfollowing prior FDA inspections. On a conference call hosted bythe Company that day, Impax further revealed that, due to themanufacturing deficiencies, it did not expect to be able to launchRytary or a generic version of Concerta until 2014. In reactionto these revelations, Impax's stock price declined $5.20 pershare, or 26 percent, to close at $14.80 per share on March 5,2013, on extraordinary trading volume.

If you purchased Impax common stock during the Class Period, youmay be able to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff. Lead Plaintiffmotion papers must be filed with the U.S. District Court for theNorthern District of California no later than May 6, 2013. A leadplaintiff is a court-appointed representative for absent Classmembers. You do not need to seek appointment as lead plaintiff toshare in any Class recovery in this action. If you are a Classmember and there is a recovery for the Class, you can share inthat recovery as an absent Class member. You may retain counselof your choice to represent you in this action.

If you would like to consider serving as lead plaintiff or haveany questions about the lawsuit, you may contact Rachel A. Avan,Esq. of Labaton Sucharow LLP, at (800) 321-0476 or (212) 907-0709,or via e-mail at ravan@labaton.com

Labaton Sucharow LLP -- http://www.labaton.com-- represents institutional investors in class action and complex securitieslitigation, as well as consumers and businesses in class actionsseeking to recover damages for anticompetitive practices.The firm has offices in New York, New York and Wilmington,Delaware.

The FSIS says the list of store locations may not include allretail locations that have received the recalled product or mayinclude retail locations that did not actually receive therecalled product. Therefore, the FSIS says, it is important thatconsumers use the product-specific identification informationavailable at http://is.gd/CDvWNw(and http://is.gd/IAZCqo),in addition to the list of retail stores, to check meat or poultryproducts in the consumers' possession to see if they have beenrecalled.

NAT'L FOOTBALL: Publicity Rights Settlements Gets Prelim. Court OK------------------------------------------------------------------Dave Campbell, writing for The Associated Press, reports that the$50 million settlement between the NFL and a group of retiredplayers over publicity rights was given preliminary approval onApril 8 by a federal judge who likened some of the retirees topetulant children for complaining about the money now that it hasbeen awarded.

The settlement of the class-action lawsuit was reached last month,but some of the plaintiffs opposed the agreement, arguing it's notgood enough. U.S. District Judge Paul Magnuson said in his orderthat the contentious nature of the case and the complexity andexpense of further litigation "weigh heavily in favor" of finalapproval of the settlement, which could take place this summer.

"It is the height of disingenuousness for these same plaintiffs tonow complain, like children denied dessert, that the settlementdoes not benefit enough the individuals who brought the lawsuit,"Judge Magnuson wrote. "The benefits of this settlement to theclass are plain: it will assist those who most need assistance,and will resolve the very problem that this lawsuit seeks toaddress by allowing former players true access to the value oftheir rights of publicity. Every hour of attorney time spentopposing the settlement only diminishes the value of thatsettlement to the members of the class."

Some $42 million will be distributed to a "common good" trust overthe next eight years to help retired players with issues likemedical expenses, housing and career transition. The settlementwill also establish a licensing agency for retirees to ensurecompensation for the use of their identities.

Attorneys for Elvin Bethea, John Dryer, Jim Marshall, DantePastorini, Joe Senser and Ed White, six of the plaintiffs on theoriginal complaint filed in Minneapolis in 2009, wrote to Magnusonlast week to express concern that the class represented by thelawsuit cannot be directly compensated through the settlement.

They also complained about the lack of a neutral party to guideadministration of the funds.

The original lawsuit accused the NFL of exploitation of theidentities of retired players in highlight films and memorabilia.The settlement calls for the NFL to pay $42 million toward thecause and another $8 million in associated costs including start-up money for the licensing agency.

The common good fund will be administered by a group of retiredplayers approved by the court. The licensing agency will for thefirst time market retiree publicity rights in conjunction with theNFL, thereby making it easier for retired players to work withpotential sponsors and advertisers.

In the past, if Mr. Marshall, for example, was approached by acompany looking to pay him to use footage of him as a player in acommercial or advertisement, the company had to seek NFL approval,the Minnesota Vikings for more approval and further approval fromany other player featured in that footage.

The settlement only covers those players who are currentlyretired, but players who retire in the future will have the chanceto utilize the newly formed licensing agency.

According to ProFootballTalk's Mike Florio, a hearing on the finalapproval of the settlement will be held on September 19, 2013. Inthe interim, all members of the class will have an opportunity tofile their own objections to the proposed agreement, which"provides for a fund overseen by a panel of former player . . .that will distribute payments to assist former players and theirfamilies, and for a licensing agency to market former players'publicity rights, with the blessing (and the use of sometrademarks and copyrights) of the NFL."

The efforts will be overseen by a group of players that includesMr. Dryer's former teammate with the Rams, Jim Youngblood. Alsoon the panel will be Jim Brown, Irv Cross, Billy Joe Dupree, RonMix, Darrell Thompson, and David Robinson.

Once a class action settlement receives the preliminary blessingof the presiding judge, the case usually settles according to theproposed deal. But the law requires i's to be dotted and t's tobe crossed before the rights of people who haven't joined thelawsuit are determined, even if few if any of those people willever complain.

"It bears repeating: the individuals who originally brought thislawsuit and who now oppose the settlement rode into Court on thebanner of saving their downtrodden brethren, those who had playedin the NFL yet today were penniless and, often, suffering frominjuries or illnesses directly related to their playing days,"Judge Magnuson writes. "It is the height of disingenuousness forthese same Plaintiffs to now complain, like children denieddessert, that the settlement does not benefit enough theindividuals who brought the lawsuit."

NAT'L FOOTBALL: Hears Arguments on Concussion Class Action----------------------------------------------------------Mike DeNardo, writing for CBS, reports that a federal judge inPhiladelphia was set to hears arguments on whether to dismiss aclass action lawsuit accusing the NFL of hiding the risks ofconcussions on April 9.

The class action suit by more than 4,000 former NFL playersaccuses the league of hiding the dangers of concussions (seerelated story). Players want their case to remain in federalcourt, where they can use the rules of discovery to get a look atNFL files to find out what the league knew about the effects ofrepetitive brain injuries.

The NFL, though, is expected to argue that players' health andsafety were covered under collective bargaining agreements -- sothe matter should be heard by a labor arbitrator.

Judge Anita Brody is not expected to rule for several months, andher decision will likely be appealed.

NOKIA CORP: "Chmielinski" Suit Withdrawn and Dismissed in Dec.--------------------------------------------------------------The class action lawsuit styled Chmielinski v. Nokia Corporationwas withdrawn and dismissed in December 2012, according to theCompany's March 7, 2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securitiesand Exchange Commission for the year endedDecember 31, 2012.

On May 3, 2012, the class action complaint entitled Chmielinski v.Nokia Corporation was filed in the United States District Courtfor the Southern District of New York naming Nokia Corporation andtwo of its executives as defendants. In summary the complaintalleged that from October 26, 2011, to April 10, 2012, falsepositive statements were made about Nokia's financial outlook andgrowth prospects in relation to the conversion to a Windows Phone-based operating system for smartphones. After investigation, theplaintiffs agreed to dismiss the case against all defendantswithout any compensation being paid to any plaintiff or theircounsel by any defendant. On December 12, 2012, the complaint waswithdrawn and dismissed.

Headquartered in Espoo, Finland, Nokia Corporation --http://www.nokia.com/-- is a public limited liability company incorporated under the laws of the Republic of Finland. Nokia isin the business of mobile communications, whose products havebecome an integral part of the lives of people around the world.

NOKIA CORP: Continues to Defend Product-Related Litigation----------------------------------------------------------Nokia Corporation continues to defend itself against product-related lawsuits, according to the Company's March 7, 2013, Form20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission forthe year ended December 31, 2012.

Nokia and several other mobile device manufacturers, distributorsand network operators were named as defendants in a series ofclass action lawsuits filed in various U.S. jurisdictions. Theactions were brought on behalf of a purported class of persons inthe U.S. as a whole, consisting of all individuals that purchasedmobile devices without a headset. In general, the complaintsallege that handheld cellular telephone use causes and creates arisk of cell level injury and claim the defendants should haveincluded a headset with every hand-held mobile telephone as ameans of reducing any potential health risk associated with thetelephone's use. All of these cases have been withdrawn ordismissed.

The Company has also been named as a defendant along with severalother mobile device manufacturers and network operators in twelvelawsuits by individual plaintiffs who allege that the radioemissions from mobile devices caused or contributed to eachplaintiff's brain tumor and other adverse health effects.

The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia determined thatadverse health effect claims arising from the use of cellularhandsets that operate within the U.S. Federal CommunicationsCommission radio frequency emission guidelines are pre-empted byfederal law. Claims that are based upon handsets that operateoutside the Federal Communications Commission Guidelines, or werein use before the guidelines were established in 1996, are notpre-empted. The plaintiffs in the subject lawsuits all allegethat their handsets either operated outside the U.S. FederalCommunications Commission emission guidelines or were manufacturedbefore any guidelines were established. The lawsuits also allegean industry wide conspiracy to manipulate the science and testingsurrounding the establishment of emission guidelines and testingprotocol. A hearing on the admissibility of the plaintiffs'proffered general causation evidence will likely occur in thefourth quarter of 2013, at the earliest.

The Company believes that the allegations are without merit, andwill continue to defend itself against these actions. Othercourts that have reviewed similar matters to date have found thatthere is no reliable scientific basis for the plaintiffs' claims.

Headquartered in Espoo, Finland, Nokia Corporation --http://www.nokia.com/-- is a public limited liability company incorporated under the laws of the Republic of Finland. Nokia isin the business of mobile communications, whose products havebecome an integral part of the lives of people around the world.

NOKIA CORP: Defends Suit in Calif. Over Retirement Savings Plan---------------------------------------------------------------Nokia Corporation is defending a lawsuit in California brought onbehalf of participants in or beneficiaries of the Nokia RetirementSavings and Investment Plan, according to the Company's March 7,2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the year endedDecember 31, 2012.

On September 19, 2012, a class action based on the U.S. EmployeeRetirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") entitled Romero v. Nokiawas filed in the United States District Court for the SouthernDistrict of New York. The complaint named Nokia Corporation,certain Nokia Corporation Board members, Fidelity Management TrustCo., The Nokia Retirement Savings & Investment Plan Committee andthe Plan Administrator, as well as certain individuals from theNokia Retirement Savings & Investment Plan Committee. Thecomplaint claimed to represent all persons who were participantsin or beneficiaries of the Nokia Retirement Savings and InvestmentPlan (the "Plan") who participated in the Plan between January 19,2012, and the present and whose accounts invested in the NokiaStock Fund. The complaint alleged that the named individualsbreached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, permittingthe plan to offer the fund as an investment option, permitting theplan to invest in the fund and permitting the fund to invest inand remain invested in American Depository Receipts of NokiaCorporation when the defendants allegedly knew the fund andNokia's shares were extremely risky investments.

On December 10, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss thecomplaint against all defendants without prejudice and filed a newcomplaint in the United States District Court for the NorthernDistrict of California, naming as defendants Nokia Inc., the NokiaRetirement Savings and Investment Plan Committee, and severalindividuals alleged to be plan fiduciaries, claiming to representall persons who were participants in or beneficiaries of the NokiaRetirement Savings and Investment Plan (the "Plan") whoparticipated in the Plan between January 19, 2012, and the presentand whose accounts invested in the Nokia Stock Fund. Thecomplaint alleges that named individuals breached their fiduciaryduties by, among other things, permitting the plan to offer thefund as an investment option, permitting the plan to invest in thefund and permitting the fund to invest in and remain invested inAmerican Depository Receipts of Nokia Corporation when thedefendants allegedly knew the fund and Nokia's shares wereextremely risky investments.

The Company believes that the allegations are without merit, andit will continue to defend itself against this action.

Headquartered in Espoo, Finland, Nokia Corporation --http://www.nokia.com/-- is a public limited liability company incorporated under the laws of the Republic of Finland. Nokia isin the business of mobile communications, whose products havebecome an integral part of the lives of people around the world.

NOKIA CORP: Dismissal of Securities Suit Became Final in Jan.-------------------------------------------------------------The dismissal of a securities class action lawsuit in New Yorkbecame final in January 2013, according to Nokia Corporation'sMarch 7, 2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities andExchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

On February 5, 2010, a lawsuit was initiated by a municipalretirement fund in the United States District Court for theSouthern District of New York on behalf of itself, and was seekingclass action status on behalf of purchasers of American DepositoryShares or ADS's, of Nokia between January 24, 2008, and September5, 2008, inclusive, to pursue remedies under the Securities andExchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). An amended complaintwas filed in the same lawsuit on August 23, 2010, by a differentmunicipal retirement fund that was appointed lead plaintiff. Thecomplaint generally alleged that certain officers and executivesof Nokia Corporation violated the Exchange Act when they allegedlyfailed to disclose materially adverse facts about the Company'sbusiness in a timely manner, including allegations of failures todisclose product launch delays, intense price competition, loss ofmarket share to competitors and changing worldwide marketconditions, all of which were adverse to the Company. Afterextensive proceedings, the case was dismissed by the Court onDecember 12, 2012. No appeal was taken and the dismissal becamefinal on January 12, 2013.

Headquartered in Espoo, Finland, Nokia Corporation --http://www.nokia.com/-- is a public limited liability company incorporated under the laws of the Republic of Finland. Nokia isin the business of mobile communications, whose products havebecome an integral part of the lives of people around the world.

NOKIA CORP: Expects Decision in Retirement Savings Plan Suit------------------------------------------------------------Nokia Corporation is expecting a decision this year in the classaction lawsuit brought on behalf of the participants in orbeneficiaries of the Nokia Retirement Savings and Investment Plan,according to the Company's March 7, 2013, Form 20-F filing withthe U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year endedDecember 31, 2012.

On April 19, 2010, and April 21, 2010, two individuals filedseparate putative class action lawsuits against Nokia Inc. and thedirectors and officers of Nokia Inc., and certain other employeesand representatives of the company, claiming to represent allpersons who were participants in or beneficiaries of the NokiaRetirement Savings and Investment Plan (the "Plan") whoparticipated in the Plan between January 1, 2008, and the presentand whose accounts included investments in Nokia shares. Theplaintiffs allege that the defendants failed to comply with theirstatutory and fiduciary duties when they failed to remove Nokiashares as a plan investment option. The cases were consolidatedand an amended consolidated complaint was filed on September 15,2010. The amended complaint alleges that the named individualsknew of the matters alleged in the securities case that thematters significantly increased the risk of Nokia sharesownership, and as a result of that knowledge, the named defendantsshould have removed Nokia shares as a Plan investment option. Theplaintiff's claims were dismissed in their entirety on September5, 2011.

On September 13, 2012 the Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion forleave to amend their complaint a second time and entered judgmentin favor of Nokia. On October 23, 2012, the plaintiffs filed anappeal of the District Court's order granting judgment in favor ofNokia. A decision on the Appeal is expected in 2013.

The Company believes that the allegations are without merit, andthe Company will continue to defend itself against this action.

Headquartered in Espoo, Finland, Nokia Corporation --http://www.nokia.com/-- is a public limited liability company incorporated under the laws of the Republic of Finland. Nokia isin the business of mobile communications, whose products havebecome an integral part of the lives of people around the world.

NORTH SHORE-LIJ: Frank & Bianco Files Class Action Over Tax Refund------------------------------------------------------------------Frank & Bianco LLP on April 8 disclosed that it has filed a classaction complaint in the Supreme Court of New York, New YorkCounty, captioned Weinberg v. North Shore-LIJ Health System, CaseNo. 153122/2013. The lawsuit is filed on behalf of persons whowere medical residents, including fellows in training programs, atNorth Shore-LIJ Health System and its member hospitals, fromJanuary 1, 1995, through and including March 31, 2005.

The lawsuit alleges that North Shore-LIJ failed to adequatelynotify Medical Residents of the availability of a refund ofFederal Insurance Contributions Act taxes that North Shore-LIJimproperly withheld from Medical Residents during the ClassPeriod.

In 2010 the U.S. Treasury Department made available a refund ofthe improperly withheld FICA taxes upon its receipt of a consentform from the Medical Residents. From July through August 2010,North Shore-LIJ mailed the consent form for the refund to theMedical Residents. That consent form needed to be signed andreturned to North Shore-LIJ in order for the Medical Residents toreceive the refund.

The complaint alleges that North Shore-LIJ did not adequatelyupdate the up to 15 year old addresses it had on file for itsMedical Residents before mailing the consent form. As a result,Plaintiff and other members of the Class did not receive notice ofthe FICA tax refund, did not receive the consent form, andtherefore, were not refunded tens of thousands of dollars ofimproperly withheld FICA taxes.

If you were a Medical Resident at North Shore-LIJ, or one of itsmember hospitals, from January 1, 1995, through and includingMarch 31, 2005, and wish to discuss this litigation, or have anyquestions concerning this Notice or your rights or interests withrespect to these matters, please contact us.

The case arises out of the Plaintiffs' claim that Red Rockviolated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. Section1692, et seq., in attempting to collect unpaid debts owed by thePlaintiffs to third parties. The Plaintiffs' putative classaction complaint contends that the collection letters did notcomply with the FDCPA for two reasons: (i) the collection lettersrequired plaintiffs to dispute the debts in writing; and (ii) thecollection letters contained a clause which stated defendantswould prepare and file a lien for delinquent assessments on behalfof the original creditor if the balance was not paid in fullwithin 30 days. The Plaintiffs seek: (1) statutory damages in theamount of $1,000, plus costs and fees incurred in connection withthe prosecution of plaintiffs' claims; (2) statutory damagesawarded to the class members of the amount not to exceed thelesser of $500,000 or 1 per centum of the net worth of the debtcollector; (3) disgorgement; (4) actual damages incurred byplaintiffs; and, (5) a declaration that the form letters violatedthe FDCPA pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section 1592k(a)(3).

The Defendant served a Rule 68 offer of judgment that offered thePlaintiffs: (1) the total sum of $3,003; (2) reasonable costs andattorneys' fees incurred by the Plaintiffs in prosecuting theirclaims under the FDCPA; (3) any verifiable actual damages; and,(4) to stipulate to a declaration as sought by plaintiffs. ThePlaintiffs declined the offer, which has since lapsed.

After the Plaintiffs declined the offer, the Defendant filed themotion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The Defendant arguesthat the Plaintiffs have mooted the case or controversyrequirement by declining the offer.

Judge Mahan said the Court does not find the case moot under themore flexible nature of the mootness doctrine in relation to classcertification. "This case has been brought as a putative classaction, therefore the Rule 68 offer of judgment does not renderthe action moot," he added.

The court has not set a deadline for the filing of a motion forclass certification. The local rules of the District of Nevada donot impose a particular deadline for filing a motion for classcertification. Though the Defendant contends that there has beenample time for filing, the Court did not set any deadline for theclass certification motion and discovery has not concluded.Therefore, says Judge Mahan, because no deadline has been imposedand discovery has not concluded, the Court, at this time, cannotrule any motion for class certification untimely.

Accordingly, the Court denied Red Rock's motion to dismiss.

A copy of the District Court's April 10, 2013 Order is availableat http://is.gd/jGB0Zqfrom Leagle.com.

SMALL WORLD: Recalls 4,000 Spin-A-Mals Farm and Safari Puzzles--------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation withSmall World Toys Enterprises, of Torrance, California, announced avoluntary recall of about 4,000 Children's Wooden Puzzles.Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwiseinstructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell arecalled consumer product.

Small pegs on the puzzle boards can loosen and separate from theboards, posing a choking hazard to children.

The firm has received four reports of pegs separating from puzzleboards. No injuries have been reported.

The recalled products are Ryan's Room brand Spin-A-Mals Farm andSpin-A-Mals Safari puzzles intended for children over 12 months ofage. Both toys are made of wood. The puzzles consist of apainted, rectangular board with pegs mounted to it and removablegear and animal-shaped pieces. The farm puzzle has 14 puzzlepieces including three animal pieces: a cow, a dog and a sheep.The safari puzzle has 11 puzzle pieces. Children place the piecesonto the pegs and use the knob on one of the pieces or insert ananimal figure into other pieces to rotate all of the gears. Thepuzzle boards have "2012 Small World Toys" on the bottom right.Pictures of the recalled products are available at:http://is.gd/SaTAHU

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at toystores nationwide and catalogs from May 2012 through October 2012for about $25.

Consumers should immediately take the puzzles away from childrenand contact Small World Toys for a free replacement toy. Aftercontacting Small World Toys, the recalled toys should be destroyedand disposed of in a manner to prevent future use. Small WorldToys may be reached at (800) 421-4153 from 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.Pacific Time Monday through Friday, e-mailrecall@smallworldtoys.com, or online athttp://www.smallworldtoys.com/,then click on "Recall" for more information.

STRATASYS LTD: Plaintiffs Engaged in Confirmatory Discovery-----------------------------------------------------------The plaintiffs in merger-related lawsuits are presently engaged inconfirmatory discovery with respect to the disclosures made inproxy statement/prospectus, according to Stratasys Ltd.'sMarch 7, 2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities andExchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

On December 1, 2012, the Company, formerly known as Objet Ltd.,completed a merger with Stratasys, Inc., a Delaware corporation.Pursuant to the merger, Stratasys, Inc. became the Company'sindirect, wholly-owned subsidiary.

On June 29, 2012, a purported class action complaint was filed inthe District Court, Fourth Judicial District, Hennepin County,Minnesota (the "Minnesota Court"), naming Stratasys, Inc., themembers of its board of directors, and Objet's two indirect,wholly-owned subsidiaries party to the merger agreement (SeuratHoldings Inc., a Delaware corporation and an indirect wholly-ownedsubsidiary of Objet, or Holdco, and Oaktree Merger Inc., aDelaware corporation, or Merger Sub) as defendants. On July 2,2012, another purported class action complaint was filed in theCourt of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Delaware Court"),naming the same persons as well as Objet as defendants. A thirdpurported class action was filed on July 17, 2012, also in theMinnesota Court naming the same parties (except for Objet) asdefendants. The complaints generally allege that, in connectionwith approving the merger, the Stratasys, Inc. directors breachedtheir fiduciary duties owed to Stratasys, Inc. stockholders andthat Stratasys, Inc., Objet, Holdco and Merger Sub knowingly aidedand abetted the Stratasys, Inc. directors' breaches of theirfiduciary duties. The complaints sought, among other things,certification of the case as a class action, an injunction againstthe consummation of the transaction, a judgment against thedefendants for damages, and an award of fees, expenses and coststo plaintiffs and their attorneys.

While the Company and the other defendants believe that each ofthe lawsuits is without merit and that the Company has validdefenses to all claims, in an effort to minimize cost and expenseof any litigation relating to such lawsuits, on September 6, 2012,the Company and other defendants entered into a memorandum ofunderstanding ("MOU") with the parties to the actions pending inthe Chancery Court and the Minnesota Court, pursuant to which theCompany and such parties agreed in principle, and subject tocertain conditions, to settle those stockholder lawsuits. Subjectto approval of the appropriate court and further definitivedocumentation, the MOU establishes a framework to resolve theallegations against the Company and other defendants in connectionwith the merger agreement and contemplates a release andsettlement by the plaintiffs of all claims against the Company andother defendants and the Company's and their affiliates and agentsin connection with the Merger Agreement. In exchange for suchrelease and settlement, pursuant to the terms of the MOU, theparties agreed, after arm's-length negotiations, that Stratasys,Inc. would file a Current Report on Form 8-K amending andsupplementing the applicable disclosure in the joint proxystatement/prospectus, dated August 8, 2012, which had been sent toStratasys, Inc. stockholders.

The plaintiffs are presently engaged in confirmatory discoverywith respect to the disclosures made in the proxystatement/prospectus. In addition, the parties are engaged innegotiating a final settlement agreement, which will be submittedto the Delaware Court for approval. However, if the conditionsset forth in the MOU are not satisfied or the Delaware Court failsto approve the settlement, the litigation will proceed, and theCompany intends to continue to vigorously defend these actions.

Stratasys Ltd. -- http://www.stratasys.com/-- an Israeli company, was incorporated in 1998, initially as Objet Geometries Ltd.,later known as Objet Ltd. After acquiring Stratasys, Inc., theCompany changed its name to Stratasys Ltd. The Company is aglobal provider of additive manufacturing solutions for thecreation of parts used in the processes of designing andmanufacturing products and for the direct manufacture of endparts. The Company has dual headquarters -- in Eden Prairie,Minnesota, and in Rehovot, Israel.

TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Continues to Defend Suits Over Compressors-------------------------------------------------------------Tecumseh Products Company continues to defend itself againstantitrust class action lawsuits arising from investigation in thecompressor industry, according to the Company's March 7, 2013,Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commissionfor the year ended December 31, 2012.

On February 17, 2009, the Company received a subpoena from theUnited States Department of Justice Antitrust Division ("DOJ") anda formal request for information from the Secretariat of EconomicLaw of the Ministry of Justice of Brazil ("SDE") related toinvestigations by these authorities into possible anti-competitivepricing arrangements among certain manufacturers in the compressorindustry. The European Commission began an investigation of theindustry on the same day.

The Company has entered into a conditional amnesty agreement withthe DOJ under the Antitrust Division's Corporate Leniency Policy.Pursuant to the agreement, the DOJ has agreed to not bring anycriminal prosecution or impose any monetary fines with respect tothe investigation against the Company as long as the Company,among other things, continues its full cooperation in theinvestigation. The Company has received similar conditionalimmunity from the European Commission and the SDE, and hasreceived or requested immunity or leniency from competitionauthorities in other jurisdictions. On December 7, 2011, theEuropean Commission announced it had reached a cartel settlementunder which certain of the Company's competitors received finesfor the conduct investigated. As a result of the Company'sconditional immunity, it was not assessed any fine.

While the Company has taken steps to avoid fines, penalties andother sanctions as the result of proceedings brought by regulatoryauthorities, the amnesty grants do not extend to civil actionsbrought by private plaintiffs. The public disclosure of theseinvestigations has resulted in class action lawsuits filed inCanada and numerous class action lawsuits filed in the UnitedStates, including by both direct and indirect purchaser groups.All of the U.S. actions have been transferred to the U.S. DistrictCourt for the Eastern District of Michigan for coordinated orconsolidated pretrial proceedings under Multidistrict Litigation("MDL") procedures.

Tecumseh Products Company, Tecumseh Compressor Company, Tecumsehdo Brasil, Ltda, and Tecumseh do Brasil U.S.A. LLC entered into asettlement agreement with the direct-purchaser plaintiffs on June24, 2010, to resolve claims in the action in order to avoid thecosts and distraction of this ongoing class action litigation.

On June 13, 2011, the Court issued an order denying withoutprejudice a motion for preliminary approval of the Company'sproposed settlement with the direct purchaser plaintiffs becausethe time frame and products covered by the proposed settlementclass were inconsistent with the Court's rulings of the same dategranting, in part, a motion by the other defendants to dismissclaims by the direct purchaser plaintiffs.

The direct purchaser plaintiffs subsequently filed a SecondAmended Master Complaint to reflect the court's rulings on themotion to dismiss which allowed them to cover fractionalcompressors, or compressors of less than one horsepower, used forrefrigeration purposes (but excluding those used for airconditioning) purchased from February 25, 2005, to December 31,2008 (the "Covered Products").

On October 15, 2012, the Company entered into a new settlementagreement with the direct-purchaser plaintiffs (the "SettlementAgreement"), which must be approved by the court. The SettlementAgreement was made by and between the Company and its subsidiariesand affiliates, and plaintiffs, both individually and on behalf ofa class of persons who purchased the Covered Products in theUnited States, its territories and possessions, directly from adefendant. Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, inexchange for plaintiffs' full release of all U.S. direct-purchaserclaims against the Company relating to refrigeration compressors,the Company agreed to pay a settlement amount of $7.0 million and,in addition, agreed to pay up to $150,000 for notice andadministrative costs associated with administering the settlement.These costs were recorded as an expense in the second quarterended June 30, 2010 (and paid in the third quarter of 2010), inthe line item captioned "Impairments, restructuring charges, andother items." Under the original agreement, administrative costswere $250,000; however upon signing the new settlement, thedifference was refunded to Tecumseh Products Company.

For the remaining indirect purchaser class actions in the U.S., aconsolidated amended complaint was filed on June 30, 2010, and theCompany filed a motion to dismiss the indirect purchaser classaction on August 30, 2010. On June 7, 2012, the court partiallygranted a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaintwith regard to claims for purchasers in several states in whichthe complaint identified no named plaintiff. Supplemental briefson the remaining issues raised in motions to dismiss have beensubmitted to the court, which has not yet ruled on the issues. InCanada, the class actions are still in a preliminary stage.

Persons who engage in price-fixing in violation of U.S. antitrustlaw generally are jointly and severally liable to privateclaimants for three times the actual damages caused by the jointconduct. As a conditional amnesty recipient, however, theCompany's civil liability will be limited pursuant to theAntitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Act of 2004, asamended ("ACPERA"). As long as the Company continues to cooperatewith the civil claimants and comply with the requirements ofACPERA, the Company will be liable only for actual, as opposed totreble, damages and will not be jointly and severally liable forclaims against other participants in the alleged anticompetitiveconduct being investigated.

On March 12, 2012, a proceeding was commenced by Electrolux doBrasil S.A., in the Civil Division of the State District Court inSao Paulo, Brazil, against Tecumseh Do Brasil Ltda. and two otherdefendants, jointly and severally. The complaint alleges thatElectrolux suffered damages from over pricing due to theactivities of a cartel of which the Company and Whirlpool weremembers. The complaint states that the amount in controversy isBrazilian Real 1,000,000. However, Electrolux would be entitledto recover any damages it is able to prove in the proceeding, inthe event that they exceed this amount. The Company timely filedopposition to this claim. Electroluxs' expert reports were filedfor consideration by the court that states the claim is timebarred due to the expiration of the applicable statute oflimitations. The Company intends to continue to vigorouslycontest the claim.

Due to uncertainty of the Company's liability in these cases, orother cases that may be brought in the future, the Company has notaccrued any liability in its financial statements, other than forthe claims subject to the Settlement Agreement. The Company'sultimate liability or the amount of any potential futuresettlements or resolution of these claims, if any, could bematerial to the Company's financial position, consolidated resultsof operations and cash flows.

The Company anticipates that it will incur additional expenses asit continues to cooperate with the investigations and defends thelawsuits. The Company expenses all legal costs as incurred in theConsolidated Statements of Operations. Such expenses and anyrestitution payments could negatively impact the Company'sreputation, compromise the Company's ability to compete and resultin financial losses in an amount which could be material to theCompany's financial position, consolidated results of operationsand cash flows.

Tecumseh Products Company -- http://www.tecumseh.com/-- is a Michigan corporation organized in 1934 and headquartered in AnnArbor. The Company's products include air conditioning andrefrigeration compressors, as well as condensing units, heat pumpsand complete refrigeration systems.

TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Still Defends Suits Over Horsepower Labels-------------------------------------------------------------Tecumseh Products Company continues to defend itself againstlawsuits over horsepower labels of lawnmower engines andlawnmowers in Canada, according to the Company's March 7, 2013,Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commissionfor the year ended December 31, 2012.

On March 19, 2010, Robert Foster and Murray Davenport filed alawsuit under the Class Proceedings Act in the Ontario SuperiorCourt of Justice against the Company and several other defendants(including Sears Canada Inc., Sears Holdings Corporation, JohnDeere Limited, Platinum Equity, LLC, Briggs & StrattonCorporation, Kawasaki Motors Corp., USA, MTD Products Inc., TheToro Company, American Honda Motor Co., Electrolux Home Products,Inc., Husqvarna Consumer Outdoor Products N.A., Inc. and KohlerCo.), alleging that defendants conspired to fix prices of lawnmowers and lawn mower engines in Canada, to lessen competition inlawn mowers and lawn mower engines in Canada, and to mislabel thehorsepower of lawn mower engines and lawn mowers in violation ofthe Canadian Competition Act, civil conspiracy prohibitions andthe Consumer Packaging and Labeling Act. The Plaintiffs seek torepresent a class of all persons in Canada who purchased, fortheir own use and not for resale, a lawn mower containing a gascombustible engine of 30 horsepower or less provided that eitherthe lawn mower or the engine contained within the lawn mower wasmanufactured and/or sold by a defendant or their predecessorsbetween January 1, 1994 and the date of judgment. The Plaintiffsseek undetermined money damages, punitive damages, interest, costsand equitable relief. In addition, Snowstorm AcquisitionCorporation and Platinum Equity, LLC, the purchasers of TecumsehPower Company and its subsidiaries and Motoco a.s. in November2007, have notified the Company that they claim indemnificationwith respect to this lawsuit under the Company's Stock PurchaseAgreement with them.

At this time, the Company does not have a reasonable estimate ofthe amount of its ultimate liability, if any, or the amount of anypotential future settlement, but the amount could be material tothe Company's financial position, consolidated results ofoperations and cash flows.

On May 3, 2010, a class action was commenced in the Superior Courtof the Province of Quebec by Eric Liverman and Sidney Vadishagainst the Company and several other defendants advancingallegations similar to those in the Foster case. The Plaintiffsseek undetermined monetary damages, punitive damages, interest,costs, and equitable relief. Snowstorm Acquisition Corporationand Platinum Equity, LLC, the purchasers of Tecumseh Power Companyand its subsidiaries and Motoco a.s. in November 2007, havenotified the Company that they claim indemnification with respectto this lawsuit under the Company's Stock Purchase Agreement withthem.

At this time, the Company does not have a reasonable estimate ofthe amount of its ultimate liability, if any, or the amount of anypotential future settlement, but the amount could be material tothe Company's financial position, consolidated results ofoperations and cash flows.

Tecumseh Products Company -- http://www.tecumseh.com/-- is a Michigan corporation organized in 1934 and headquartered in AnnArbor. The Company's products include air conditioning andrefrigeration compressors, as well as condensing units, heat pumpsand complete refrigeration systems.

THOR INDUSTRIES: Awaits Plaintiffs' Next Move in Formaldehyde MDL-----------------------------------------------------------------Thor Industries, Inc. is awaiting for the plaintiffs' next move inthe FEMA Trailer Formaldehyde Litigation, according to theCompany's March 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securitiesand Exchange Commission for the quarter endedJanuary 31, 2013.

Beginning in 2006, a number of lawsuits were filed againstnumerous trailer and manufactured housing manufacturers, includingcomplaints against the Company. The complaints were filed invarious state and federal courts throughout Louisiana, Alabama,Texas and Mississippi on behalf of Gulf Coast residents who livedin travel trailers, park model trailers and manufactured homesprovided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency ("FEMA")following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005. The complaintsgenerally alleged that residents who occupied FEMA suppliedemergency housing units, such as travel trailers, were exposed toformaldehyde emitted from the trailers. The plaintiffs allegedvarious injuries from exposure, including health issues andemotional distress. Most of the initial cases were filed as classaction lawsuits. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation(the "MDL panel") had the authority to designate one court tocoordinate and consolidate discovery and pretrial proceedings in aproceeding known as multidistrict litigation ("MDL"). The MDLpanel transferred the actions to the United States District Courtfor the Eastern District of Louisiana (the "MDL Court") becausethe actions in different jurisdictions involved common questionsof fact. The MDL Court denied class certification in December2008, and consequently, the cases were administered as a massjoinder of claims (the "MDL proceeding").

On December 21, 2011, the MDL Court issued an Order that, amongother matters, mandated certain manufacturing defendants in thelitigation, including the Company and several of its recreationvehicle ("RV") subsidiaries, to participate in mediation inJanuary 2012. The Company's Heartland subsidiary participated ina mediation on January 27, 2012, and reached an agreement inprinciple to resolve the pending claims against it on February 2,2012. The other Thor RV subsidiaries involved in the MDLproceeding collectively participated in a mediation onJanuary 19, 2012, and during a second mediation session held onFebruary 10, 2012, reached an agreement in principle to resolvethe litigation. On March 27, 2012, Heartland and its insurancecarriers entered into a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU")memorializing the February 2, 2012 settlement. On March 30, 2012,Thor Industries, Inc., for itself and on behalf of its other RVsubsidiaries involved in the MDL proceeding, and its insurancecarriers, entered into an MOU memorializing the settlement reachedon February 10, 2012.

On April 19, 2012, the Company disclosed that it and its RVsubsidiaries involved in the MDL proceeding, their respectiveinsurance carriers, several unaffiliated manufacturers of RVs andtheir insurers, and legal representatives of the plaintiffs eachexecuted a Stipulation of Settlement.

On June 1, 2012, the Company paid $4.7 million into the Registryof the United States District of Louisiana. This paymentrepresents full payment of the Company and its subsidiaries'obligation under the Stipulation of Settlement.

On September 27, 2012, after counsel for the plaintiffs producedthe list of members of the class who requested exclusion from theproposed settlement, the MDL Court conducted a Fairness Hearingduring which final approval of the proposed settlement wasevaluated. On that same date, the Court approved the settlementand entered a final, appealable order dismissing all of the claimspending in the MDL litigation. Because no plaintiffs with claimsagainst the Company or any of its subsidiaries opted out of thesettlement, this order, assuming no appeal is taken, effectivelyends the litigation against the Company and its subsidiaries.

Thor Industries, Inc., was founded in 1980 and is headquartered inJackson Center, Ohio. Through its subsidiaries, the Companymanufactures a wide range of recreation vehicles and small andmid-size buses at various manufacturing facilities across theUnited States.

UPMC: Wants Highmark to Turn Over Records of Settlement Talks-------------------------------------------------------------Brian Bowling, writing for TribLIVE, reports that a federal judgeshould order Highmark and lawyers for plaintiffs in a class-actionantitrust lawsuit to turn over records of their settlement talksto UPMC, a retired judge said in a report filed on April 8.

The hospital system contends that the lawsuit is a "sham" and thatHighmark and lawyers representing Royal Mile Co. and the otherplaintiffs are working together to hurt UPMC's business.

U.S. District Judge Joy Flowers Conti appointed Richard A. Levie,a retired superior court judge for the District of Columbia, tountangle competing evidence claims in the lawsuit. Judge Leviesaid UPMC's arguments are "sufficiently strong" to justify givingit a look at the records.

Scott Hare, one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs, said thatwhile they have since filed a motion to withdraw the proposedsettlement, they disagree with Judge Levie's recommendation.

"This proposed settlement is not the product of collusion. It isnot a sham. That is nothing more than a wild fishing expeditionby UPMC," he said.

A UPMC spokesman declined to comment. A Highmark spokesmancouldn't be reached.

Judge Conti has yet to rule on the motion to withdraw the proposedsettlement. She is in the process of appointing a health careeconomist to determine what value it would have for premiumpayers.

WEGMANS FOOD: Recalls Food You Feel Good About Roasted Red Pepper-----------------------------------------------------------------Wegmans Food Markets is recalling approximately 1,100 affectedunits of Wegmans Food You Feel Good About Roasted Red Pepper Dip,8 oz. tub, with a best-by date of 5/17/13, because some of thetubs may have an incorrect ingredient label that does not listmilk and eggs. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivityto milk or eggs run the risk of serious or life-threateningallergic reaction if they consume these products.

The affected units were distributed to Wegman stores in New York,New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Maryland, and Massachusetts.

The product is produced for Wegmans by Summer Fresh Salads, Inc.of Woodbridge, Ontario, Canada, and sold in 8 oz. plastic tubsbearing UPC 77890 23286 with a best-by date of 5/17/13. Pictureof the recalled products is available at:

The recall was initiated after a customer contacted Wegmans'consumer affairs department and made them aware of the labeldiscrepancy.

Concerned customers should return the product to their localWegmans service desk for a full refund. Wegmans customers withquestions or concerns should contact the consumer affairsdepartment at 1-855-WEGFOODS (934-3663), Monday through Friday,8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time.

WELLS FARGO: Settles Check Deduction Class Action for $850,000--------------------------------------------------------------Pete Brush, writing for Law360, reports that a former Wells Fargo& Co. mortgage consultant who claims the bank illegally docked hispay every time he performed a credit check that did not result ina loan asked a New York federal judge on April 5 to approve an$850,000 class action settlement. Plaintiff Trevor D'Andradeproposed the settlement just over two years after he filed suitclaiming Wells Fargo deducted $15 for a single credit check -- $25for a double check -- every time he probed the credit of acustomer.

WINN-DIXIE: Settles Security Breach Class Action------------------------------------------------Christian Conte, writing for Jacksonville Business Journal,reports that an employee purchase program company has agreed topay $428,500 to resolve a class action lawsuit filed by a formerWinn-Dixie employee after his personal employee data was breached,according to public records.

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court Southern Districtof Florida in 2012 after Patrick Burrows was informed by theInternal Revenue Service that he was not eligible for a tax refundbecause someone else had already filed for one using his identity.

The suit was filed against Purchasing Power LLC, along with Winn-Dixie, and claimed damages of more than $5 million for damagesrelated to the breach of Winn-Dixie employee names, address, birthdates, salaries and Social Security numbers.

The April 5 settlement is for all Winn-Dixie employees who hadtheir personal identifying information transferred to a specificPurchasing Power file in 2009. The award includes $225,000 forclass members who establish claims, $200,000 for attorneys' feesand $3,500 as an incentive award fee to Mr. Burrows for acting asthe class representative.

In the settlement Purchasing Power denies the allegations in thecompany, but "nevertheless, for the purpose of avoiding theburden, expense, risk and uncertainty of continuing to litigatethe action, and for the purchase of putting to rest thecontroversies engendered by the action, and without any admissionof any liability or wrongdoing whatsoever, Purchasing Powerdesires to settle the action."

YPF SOCIEDAD: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action----------------------------------------------------------Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on April 8 disclosed that a classaction has been commenced in the United States District Court forthe Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of theAmerican Depositary Shares of YPF Sociedad Anonima betweenDecember 22, 2009 and April 16, 2012, inclusive seeking to pursueremedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court nolater than April 8. If you wish to discuss this action or haveany questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests,please contact plaintiff's counsel, Samuel H. Rudman or David A.Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, orvia e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com

Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve aslead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose todo nothing and remain an absent class member.

YPF describes itself as "Argentina's leading energy company,operating a fully integrated oil and gas chain with leading marketpositions" in the exploration, development and production of crudeoil, natural gas and liquefied petroleum gas, and the refining,marketing, transportation and distribution of energy-basedproducts. Since 1999, YPF was owned and controlled by RepsolS.A., formerly known as Repsol YPF, S.A. Repsol is a Spanish-based, integrated oil and gas company that is engaged in allaspects of the oil and gas industry.

The complaint alleges that in late 2007, Repsol hoped that itcould shield itself against possible Argentinean governmentaggression and began to reduce its exposure to Argentina byagreeing to sell up to 25% of YPF to businessman EnriqueEskenazi's Petersen Group, which was closely allied with theArgentinean government. In December 2009, YPF announced a five-year plan, also known as the Horizon 2014 plan, to increaseexploration in untapped regions of Argentina. However, inreality, the plan was part of a scheme that would allow Repsol tostave off nationalization of YPF by claiming that it would investits capital in exploration and production of Argentina's naturalresources and, at the same time, enable Repsol to sell off largepercentages of its holdings in YPF.

According to the complaint, Repsol and the Eskenazis had nointention to reinvest YPF's capital into Argentina because Repsoland the Eskenazi family needed YPF to continue to pay abnormallyhigh dividends (80 to 90 percent) for their own benefit ratherthan invest in the production of oil and gas through theirconcession contracts with certain Argentinean provinces. The highdividends were used by the Eskenazi family to pay back the "no-money down" loans it received from Repsol and certain banks toacquire its stake in YPF. Specifically, since 2006, YPF invested$11 billion in Argentina while handing out $3.5 billion individends. However, contrary to YPF's Horizon 2014 plan, themajority of their investment went to bolstering existing fieldsrather than to exploration.

The complaint further alleges that throughout the Class Period,the Argentinean government was frustrated with the way that YPFwas being run. Specifically, the Argentinean government wasdissatisfied that: (i) Argentina was becoming a net importer ofnatural gas and oil, despite having sufficient supplies of its ownnatural resources; (ii) YPF was not adequately producing oil andgas within Argentina; and (iii) YPF was continuing to distribute alarge portion of its profits to Repsol and its other shareholdersin the form of high dividends instead of reinvesting them backinto the Company and its operations. By late 2011, theArgentinean government grew unhappy with Repsol and the Eskenazifamily and their lack of investment. On April 16, 2012, thePresident of Argentina, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, announcedthat the government would nationalize YPF and seize a majoritystake in YPF from Repsol. Moreover, President Fernandez ousteddefendant Sebastian Eskenazi as YPF's CEO, among others, and namedtwo top aides to run the Company. Upon this news, trading in theCompany's ADSs was halted on April 17, 2012. When trading resumedon April 18, 2012, the price of the Company's ADSs declined $6.38per ADS, or over 32%, to close at $13.12 per ADS, on significantlyheavy trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers ofYPF ADSs during the Class Period. The plaintiff is represented byRobbins Geller, which has expertise in prosecuting investor classactions and extensive experience in actions involving financialfraud.

Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- represents U.S. and international institutional investors in contingency-basedsecurities and corporate litigation.

* Securities Class Actions Target C-Suite Execs, PwC Report Says----------------------------------------------------------------Rachel Louise Ensign, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reportsthat in a year of mixed signals for securities litigation, onething was for sure in 2012: securities-related class action suitsare going after those at the top. Chief executives wereexplicitly named in 94% of federal securities class-actionlawsuits in 2012, up from 86% of suits the year prior, accordingto a report released on April 9 by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP.

Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suit v. Georgia-Pacific Remanded to State Court----------------------------------------------------------------In March 2012, doctors diagnosed June Pitman with mesothelioma.Pitman alleges that asbestos exposure caused her disease. Sheclaims that her father carried asbestos fibers home from work inhis clothing and exposed her. In state court, Pitman broughtstrict liability and negligence claims against asbestos productsmanufacturers, suppliers, and installers allegedly responsible forexposing her and her father to asbestos. Georgia-Pacific, L.L.C.,a defendant, removed the case to federal court.

Pitman moves to remand, contending that incomplete diversity ofthe parties renders the federal court without subject matterjurisdiction. Indeed, it is undisputed in the case that Pitman,along with defendants Eagle Incorporated and Taylor-Seidenbach areLouisiana citizens for jurisdictional purposes.

Georgia-Pacific argues that diversity remains incomplete becausePitman improperly joined Eagle and Taylor, and that theircitizenship is inconsequential in the federal court'sjurisdictional analysis. Georgia-Pacific also filed a separatemotion for limited discovery on the issue of improper joinder.

In an order dated April 5, 2013, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S.District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana grantedPitman's motion to remand and denied Georgia-Pacific's motion.

Judge Vance found that the Plaintiff's complaint adequatelyalleges the Defendants' products contained asbestos and wereunreasonably dangerous, unreasonably dangerous per se, andunreasonably dangerous for failure to include a warning about thedangers of asbestos exposure. Accordingly, Judge Vance concludedthat the Plaintiff has stated a reasonable basis for relief.

Moreover, Judge Vance said the case is not suited for furtherdiscovery on improper joinder since there is already evidence inthe record linking Eagle to Pabco, and Pabco's products to thePlaintiff's father, Georgia-Pacific's proposed discovery would noteasily disprove an essential fact.

The matter is remanded to the Civil District Court for the Parishof Orleans, State of Louisiana, for further proceedings.

Defendant John Crane Inc. served written discovery, includingrequests for admission in October 2012. According to thedeclaration proffered by the Plaintiffs, they responded to JCI'swritten discovery in November 2012, but failed to serve responsesto the requests for admissions. Kenneth O. Taylor II, counsel forthe Plaintiffs, said the attorney managing the case left the firmshortly thereafter, and that no one noticed the oversight untilcounsel for JCI called them and informed them that the responseswere overdue and would be deemed admitted. He alleges that hecontacted JCI in December 2012 to seek a stipulation for more timeto respond to the requests for admissions, but defense counseldeclined two days later, and so the Plaintiffs filed the presentmotion.

In granting the Plaintiffs' motion, Judge Moskowitz found thatupholding the admissions would practically eliminate anypresentation of the merits of the case. Judge Moskowitz furtherfound that JCI would not be prejudiced were the admissions to bewithdrawn or amended. Judge Moskowitz stated that while the Courtwarns the Plaintiffs' counsel to tread carefully in the future,the Court found that it would only unnecessarily increase theexpense of the litigation to require the Plaintiffs to comply now.

A copy of Judge Moskowitz's Order dated April 4, 2013, isavailable at http://is.gd/vJPEBvfrom Leagle.com.

In the first asbestos-related personal injury action, defendantUS Inc. formerly known as American Standard, Inc., moves forsummary judgment on the ground that there is no evidence to showthat the plaintiffs' decedent Frank DeRogatis was exposed toasbestos from an American Standard product. Mr. DeRogatis wasdeposed on June 27, 2011 and June 28, 2011. He testified thatbeginning in 1971 he regularly cleaned ashes out of an AmericanStandard boiler at his in-laws' residence in Queens, New York.When he and his wife Emily inherited that home in 1985, hecontinued to regularly maintain that boiler until approximately1993 when they moved to another residence. Mr. DeRogatistestified that cleaning the ash pit exposed him to asbestosfibers.

In denying American Standard's motion for summary judgment, JudgeHeitler pointed out that it is undisputed that a number ofAmerican Standard products utilized asbestos components. In thisregard, the Defendant's interrogatory responses filed in the JointEastern and Southern District Asbestos Litigation provide that itmanufactured oil-fired boilers with a thick asbestos board toinsulate the combustion chamber. American Standard productcatalogs further provide that the Company instructed consumers tointegrate asbestos gaskets, rope, wicks, and insulation into someof its boilers and even supplied consumers with some of thesecomponents. In the present case, Judge Heitler said the recordpermits a reasonable inference that asbestos integrated into anAmerican Standard boiler would have dried and flaked into theboiler's ash pit over time. Taken together with Mr. DeRogatis'testimony that he maintained the boiler at issue for over 20 yearsand breathed the dust therefrom, there is a material issues offact whether the defendant contributed to Mr. DeRogatis' injuries.

In the second asbestos personal injury action, defendant KohlerCo. moves for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and allcross-claims asserted against it on the ground that plaintiffWilliam Lindsay did not sufficiently identify a Kohler product asa source of his asbestos exposure. Mr. Lindsay worked as a unionelectrician from the early 1960's until 1978 when he became hisunion's business representative. In or about 2001 he was electedto the Suffolk County Legislature, and currently serves as thatbody's Presiding Officer. Mr. Lindsay was diagnosed withmesothelioma in January 2012, and, along with his wife Lindsay,commenced the action the following month. Mr. Lindsay was deposedover the course of five days. Relevant to the Defendant's motionfor summary judgment is Mr. Lindsay's testimony that he wasexposed to asbestos containing products while working as anelectrician. The Defendant contends that it is entitled tosummary judgment because the Plaintiff's testimony iscontradictory and speculative. The Defendant further argues thatMr. Lindsay never actually worked on or observed others working ona Kohler boiler.

In dismissing Kohler's motion, Judge Heitler pointed out that thetestimony in the case illustrates that even if Mr. Lindsay did notpersonally work on the Kohler boiler at issue, there is an issueof fact whether he disturbed the insulation covering said boilerduring the course of his own electrical work. Moreover, to theextent the Defendant challenges the Plaintiff's credibility, thisis an issue that, as a matter of law, requires resolution by thetrier of fact, Judge Heitler said.

In the third asbestos related personal injury action, defendantYork International Corporation moves for summary judgmentdismissing the complaint and all cross claims against it.Plaintiff William Krauss was diagnosed with asbestosis in 1991.In 2011, a biopsy revealed that he had lung cancer. Krauss andhis wife commenced the action to recover damages for personalinjuries allegedly caused by Krauss's exposure to asbestos-containing products. Among other things, plaintiffs allege thatKrauss developed lung cancer as a result of his occupationalexposure to Borg Warner gaskets for which the defendant is liable.York claims entitlement to summary judgment because Krauss did notspecifically identify any York product as a source of his asbestosexposure.

In dismissing York's motion for summary judgment, Judge Heitlernoted that although York asserts that it did not manufacturegaskets for the types of air conditioning equipment identified byKrauss or sell gaskets under the trade name "Borg Warner", itappears that through a series of corporate transactions, BorgWarner and York had a symbiotic relationship which at one pointresulted in a single entity, raising a material question whetherindeed York is liable for injuries caused to the plaintiff by BorgWarner products. When identifying the manufacturers of theasbestos-containing products he used as an apprentice working atthe Empire State Building between 1952 and 1953, Krauss explicitlynamed Borg Warner together with Boise Cascade and Crane, JudgeHeitler further noted.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaiser's Apportionment Issue Sent to State Court-----------------------------------------------------------------In an April 8, 2013 opinion, the Court of Appeals of California,Second District, Division Four, granted the summary adjudicationand entry of judgment for Kaiser Cement and Gypsum Corporation andagainst Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania andremanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

Several years ago, the Court of Appeals addressed the case, whichinvolves insurance liability and coverage for asbestos bodilyinjury claims filed against Kaiser, in London Market Insurers v.Superior Court (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 648, 652 (LMI). There, theCourt of Appeals considered whether thousands of asbestos bodilyinjury claims brought against Kaiser Cement constituted a singleannual "occurrence" within the meaning of comprehensive generalliability policies issued by Truck Insurance Exchange. The Courtof Appeals concluded that they did not: Because under the relevantTruck policies "occurrence" meant injurious exposure to asbestos,the thousands of claims against Kaiser could not be deemed asingle annual occurrence.

The present appeal concerns a separate but related coverage issue,which arises in part out of the Supreme Court's seminal decisionin Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Admiral Ins. Co. (1995) 10 Cal.4th645 (Montrose). In Montrose, the Supreme Court adopted a"'continuous injury' trigger of coverage" approach to continuinginjury claims. Under that approach, bodily injuries and propertydamage that occur in several insurance policy periods arepotentially covered by all policies in effect during thoseperiods. Montrose provides no guidance, however, as to how toapportion liability among insurers in continuing injury cases.

That question of apportioning liability for continuing injuries israised squarely by the present case. Between 1947 and 1987,Kaiser Cement and Gypsum Corporation purchased primary insurancepolicies from four different insurers, including Truck InsuranceExchange. During many of the same years, Kaiser also purchasedexcess insurance policies. Kaiser has selected the Truck CGLpolicy in effect in 1974, which has a $500,000 per occurrencelimit and no annual liability limit, to respond initially to allclaims that allege asbestos exposure in that year.

At issue in the case is who is responsible to indemnify Kaiser forasbestos claims that exceed the 1974 primary policy's $500,000 peroccurrence limit. Kaiser and Truck contend that appellantInsurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, which issued afirst-level excess policy to Kaiser for 1974, is responsible topay claims over $500,000.

ICSOP disagrees: It contends that primary insurance limits must be"stacked," such that all available primary insurance policies --that is, all Truck policies issued to Kaiser between 1964 and1983, as well as primary policies issued to Kaiser by three othercarriers between 1947 and 1987 -- are exhausted before any excessinsurer need indemnify Kaiser for asbestos bodily injury claims.

On June 3, 2011, the Court of Appeals issued an opinion concludingthat under the language of the 1974 primary policy and principlesof California law, Truck's maximum exposure for asbestos bodilyinjury claims was $500,000 per occurrence. The Court of Appealsthus agreed with the trial court that, based on the policylanguage, once Truck contributed $500,000 per occurrence, itsobligation to Kaiser ceased. The Court of Appeals did not affirmthe trial court's grant of summary adjudication, however, becausethere was no evidence in the record as to whether the policiesissued to Kaiser by primary insurers other than Truck had beenfully exhausted. The Court of Appeals therefore could notdetermine whether ICSOP had a present duty to indemnify Kaiser.

The Supreme Court granted review on August 24, 2011. On October31, 2012, the Supreme Court transferred the matter to the Court ofAppeals with directions to vacate its decision and to reconsiderit in light of State of California v. Continental Ins. Co. (2012)55 Cal.4th 186 (Continental). Having done so, the Court ofAppeals again conclude that the policies Truck issued to Kaisercannot be stacked, and the case is remanded to the trial court todetermine whether Kaiser therefore is entitled to summaryadjudication of the fifth and sixth causes of action of the cross-complaint.

The Court of Appeals concluded that under the language of Truck's1974 primary policy, Truck's liability to Kaiser is limited to$500,000 per occurrence. Accordingly, once Truck has contributed$500,000 per asbestos bodily injury claim, its primary policiesare exhausted and Truck has no further contractual obligation toKaiser. The Court of Appeals, however, said its conclusion doesnot by itself permit it to affirm the grant of summaryadjudication because the fifth and sixth causes of action requirea finding not only that Truck's policies have been exhausted, butalso that ICSOP's obligations attach immediately upon theexhaustion of Truck's policies.

The Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court is in a farbetter position than the Court of Appeals are to determine in thefirst instance the effect of its stipulated order in light of itsconclusion that Truck's primary policies may not be stacked.Thus, the case is remanded to the trial court for a determinationof whether there remain triable issues of material fact as to thefifth and sixth causes of action.

The case is KAISER CEMENT AND GYPSUM CORPORATION, Cross-complainant and Respondent, v. INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OFPENNSYLVANIA, Cross-defendant and Appellant; TRUCK INSURANCEEXCHANGE, Plaintiff and Respondent, No. B222310 (Cal. App. Ct.).A copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/ayeLaPfrom Leagle.com.

The Plaintiff appealed the judgment for the Defendants,challenging the trial court's grant of summary judgment in theDefendants' favor on claims arising from decedent Russell Greer'salleged exposure to asbestos on home-construction sites during the1960s and 1970s. In his first amended complaint, the decedentbrought negligence and strict-products-liability claims againstnumerous defendants alleged to be suppliers or manufacturers ofasbestos-containing materials, including suppliers BackstromBuilders Center, The Miller Lumber Company, and manufacturerGeorgia-Pacific Corporation. The trial court granted those threedefendants' motions for summary judgment, concluding that therewas no genuine issue of material fact as to whether decedent hadbeen exposed to any asbestos-containing product manufactured byGeorgia-Pacific or sold by Backstrom or Miller.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision becausethe Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the summary judgmentrecord included evidence from which a jury could find in hisfavor.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3rd Cir. Junks PI Suit Following High Ct. Order----------------------------------------------------------------An asbestos personal injury case came before the United StatesCourt of Appeals, Third Circuit, on appeal from the United StatesDistrict Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, whichdismissed the action as time barred under Virginia law.Recognizing that the appeal raised an important and unresolvedquestion concerning the accrual of a cause of action for injuryfrom a latent asbestos-related disease under the Virginia statuteof limitations, on April 23, 2012, the Third Circuit entered anorder requesting that the Supreme Court of Virginia acceptcertification pursuant to Rule 5:40 of the Rules of the SupremeCourt of Virginia, and answer the following question of law:

"Whether, under Va. Code Sec. 8.01-249(4), a plaintiff's causeof action for damages due to latent mesothelioma is deemed toaccrue at the time of the mesothelioma diagnosis or decadesearlier, when the plaintiff was diagnosed with an independent,non-malignant asbestos-related disease."

The Supreme Court of Virginia accepted the certified question oflaw by order entered June 8, 2012. On January 10, 2013, the stateSupreme Court issued an opinion, which was filed with the Court onApril 3, 2013. The Supreme Court Decision, penned by ChiefJustice Cynthia D. Kinser, ruled that when enacting Code Sec.8.01-249(4), the General Assembly did not abrogate the common lawindivisible cause of action principle and that a cause of actionfor personal injury based on exposure to asbestos accrues upon thefirst communication of a diagnosis of an asbestos-related injuryor disease by a physician.

Justice Kinser pointed out that, in Virginia, remedying policy-related problems is the role of the General Assembly, not thecourts. The indivisible cause of action rule has existed in theCommonwealth for decades, and a decision that causes of action forasbestos exposure are not subject to the rule must come from theGeneral Assembly, not the Court, she emphasized. Accordingly, theSupreme Court answered the question in the negative with respectto whether, under Va. Code Sec. 8.01-249(4), a plaintiff's causeof action for damages due to latent mesothelioma is deemed toaccrue at the time of the mesothelioma diagnosis, and in theaffirmative with respect to whether, under Va. Code Sec. 8.01-249(4), a plaintiff's cause of action for damages due to latentmesothelioma is deemed to accrue decades earlier, when theplaintiff was diagnosed with an independent, non-malignantasbestos-related disease.

For the reasons set forth by the Supreme Court of Virginia inKiser v. A.W. Chesterton Co., 736 S.E.2d 910 (Va. 2013), the ThirdCircuit affirmed the decision of the District Court, dismissingthe action as time barred.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Denies Bid to Remand Suit v. GE & Crane--------------------------------------------------------------Plaintiffs, William Stallings and Carol Lee Stallings, broughtsuit in the Jefferson Circuit Court against 10 defendants allegingvarious state common law causes of action. One defendant, GeneralElectric Corporation removed the case to federal court pursuant tothe federal officer removal statute. Thereafter, Plaintiffs movedto remand to state court. After Plaintiffs served Crane Companywith the Complaint, Crane also asserted its right to a federalforum under the same jurisdictional statute and opposedPlaintiffs' motion to remand. Plaintiffs contend that neither GEnor Crane satisfy the requirements for federal officer removal.

The U.S. District court for the Western District of Kentucky,Louisville, disagrees and denied the Plaintiffs' motion in amemorandum opinion and order dated April 12, 2013.

Judge John G. Heyburn, II, who penned the decision, found that theDefendants have presented enough evidence to present a plausibleargument that they are entitled to the government contractordefense. As such, they have satisfied the requirements of thefederal officer removal statute.

Specifically, Judge Heyburn found that the Defendants have offeredproof in the form of declarations and affidavits that theymanufactured the machines and machine component parts incompliance with the detailed specifications required by the Navy.The Defendants have also established that the Navy supervised andenforced their compliance with the specifications through ahierarchical command system that involved significant interactionbetween naval officers and the Defendants' employees.

The case is WILLIAM STALLINGS and CAROL LEE STALLINGS, Plaintiffs,v. GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Civil ActionNo. 3:12-CV-00724-H (W.D. Ky.). A copy of Judge Heyburn'sDecision is available at http://is.gd/H06mYHfrom Leagle.com.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: GenCorp Inc. Had 140 Pending Cases as of Feb. 28-----------------------------------------------------------------GenCorp Inc. had 140 asbestos cases pending, according to theCompany's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the quarterly period ended February 28, 2013.

The Company has been, and continues to be, named as a defendant inlawsuits alleging personal injury or death due to exposure toasbestos in building materials, products, or in manufacturingoperations. The majority of cases are pending in Texas andPennsylvania. There were 140 asbestos cases pending as of February28, 2013.

Given the lack of any significant consistency to claims (i.e., asto product, operational site, or other relevant assertions) filedagainst the Company, the Company is unable to make a reasonableestimate of the future costs of pending claims or unassertedclaims. Accordingly, no estimate of future liability has beenaccrued.

In 2011, Aerojet received a letter demand from AMEC, plc, thesuccessor entity to the 1981 purchaser of the business assets ofBarnard & Burk, Inc., a former Aerojet subsidiary, for Aerojet toassume the defense of sixteen asbestos cases, involving 271plaintiffs, pending in Louisiana and reimbursement of over $1.7million in past legal fees and expenses. AMEC is asserting thatAerojet retained those liabilities when it sold the Barnard & Burkassets and agreed to indemnify the purchaser therefor. Under therelevant purchase agreement, the purchaser assumed only certain,specified liabilities relating to the operation of Barnard & Burkbefore the sale, with Barnard & Burk retaining all unassumed pre-closing liabilities, and Aerojet agreed to indemnify the purchaseragainst unassumed liabilities that are asserted against it. Basedon the information provided, Aerojet declined to accept theliability and requested additional information from AMECpertaining to the basis of the demand. In response to Aerojet'srequest, AMEC provided additional information regarding its claimswhich Aerojet is reviewing. In the event that this matter is notresolved consensually, AMEC may take legal action to enforce itsposition. No estimate of liability has been accrued for thismatter as of February 28, 2013.

GenCorp Inc. is a manufacturer of aerospace and defense productsand systems with a real estate segment that includes activitiesrelated to the re-zoning, entitlement, sale, and leasing of itsexcess real estate assets. The Company develops and manufacturespropulsion systems for defense and space applications, andarmaments for precision tactical and long range weapon systemsapplications.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chase Corp. Settles Claims in Jansen Complaint---------------------------------------------------------------Chase Corporation reached an agreement to settle all claimsasserted against it in a lawsuit filed by Lois Jansen, accordingto the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities andExchange Commission for the quarterly period ended February 28,2013.

The Company is one of over 100 defendants in a lawsuit pending inOhio which alleges personal injury from exposure to asbestoscontained in certain Chase products. The case is captioned MarieLou Scott, Executrix of the Estate of James T. Scott v. A-BestProducts, et al., No. 312901 in the Court of Common Pleas forCuyahoga County, Ohio. The plaintiff in the case issued discoveryrequests to Chase in August 2005, to which Chase timely respondedin September 2005. The trial had initially been scheduled tobegin on April 30, 2007. However, that date had been postponed andno new trial date has been set. As of February 28, 2013, therehave been no new developments as this Ohio lawsuit has beeninactive with respect to Chase.

The Company was named as one of the defendants in a complaintfiled on June 25, 2009, in a lawsuit captioned Lois Jansen,Individually and as Special Administrator of the Estate of ThomasJansen v. Beazer East, Inc., et al., No: 09-CV-6248 in theMilwaukee County (Wisconsin) Circuit Court. The plaintiff sued anumber of alleged manufacturers or distributors of asbestos-containing products, including Royston Laboratories (formerly anindependent company and now owned by Chase Corporation), allegingthat her husband died from workplace exposure. In February 2013,the Company reached an agreement to settle all of the claimsagainst it in an amount that the Company does not consider to bematerial.

Chase Corporation (Chase), through its subsidiaries, is a globalmanufacturer of tapes, laminates, sealants, and coatings for highreliability applications.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestosis Increases Chance of Lung Cancer-----------------------------------------------------------MedicalExpress.com reported that the chances of developing lungcancer associated with asbestos exposure, asbestosis and smokingare dramatically increased when these three risk factors arecombined, and quitting smoking significantly reduces the risk ofdeveloping lung cancer after long-term asbestos exposure,according to a new study.

"The interactions between asbestos exposure, asbestosis andsmoking, and their influence on lung cancer risk are incompletelyunderstood," said lead author Steven B. Markowitz, MD DrPH,professor of occupational and environmental medicine at the Schoolof Earth & Environmental Sciences at Queens College in New York.

"In our study of a large cohort of asbestos-exposed insulators andmore than 50,000 non-exposed controls, we found that eachindividual risk factor was associated with increased risk ofdeveloping lung cancer, while the combination of two risk factorsfurther increased the risk and the combination of all three riskfactors increased the risk of developing lung cancer almost 37-fold."

The findings, according to MedicalExpress, were published onlineahead of print publication in the American Thoracic Society'sAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. Thestudy included 2,377 long-term North American insulators and54,243 male blue collar workers with no history of exposure toasbestos from the Cancer Prevention Study II. Causes of death weredetermined from the National Death Index.

Among non-smokers, asbestos exposure increased the rate of dyingfrom lung cancer 5.2-fold, while the combination of smoking andasbestos exposure increased the death rate more than 28-fold.Asbestosis increased the risk of developing lung cancer amongasbestos-exposed subjects in both smokers and non-smokers, withthe death rate from lung cancer increasing 36.8-fold amongasbestos-exposed smokers with asbestosis.

Among insulators who quit smoking, lung cancer morality dropped inthe 10 years following smoking cessation from 177 deaths per10,000 among current smokers to 90 per 10,000 among those whoquit. Lung cancer rates among insulators who had stopped smokingmore than 30 years earlier were similar to those among insulatorswho had never smoked.

There were a few limitations to the study, including the fact thatsmoking status and asbestosis were evaluated only once and thatsome members of the control group could have been exposed torelatively brief periods of asbestos.

"Our study provides strong evidence that asbestos exposure causeslung cancer through multiple mechanisms," said Dr. Markowitz."Importantly, we also show that quitting smoking greatly reducesthe increased lung cancer risk seen in this population."

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Questions Arise Over Bldg. Fibro Removal---------------------------------------------------------Lance Griffin, writing for Dothan Eagle, reported that a disputeover the abatement of asbestos at a run-down apartment building indowntown Dothan led to a contentious meeting of the HistoricPreservation Commission on April 11.

The building, Saints Apartments, was purchased Feb. 28 by theDothan Downtown Redevelopment Authority through a combination offunds from the authority, Houston County and Five-Star CreditUnion. DDRA Executive Director Jansen Tidmore scheduled exteriorasbestos abatement for the building. The abatement was completedTuesday by Alabama Environmental, Inc., a Tuscaloosa-basedcompany. Because Saints Apartments is located in Dothan's HistoricDistrict and because asbestos abatement alters the exterior of thebuilding, the process requires prior approval by the HistoricPreservation Commission. That approval was not sought. Tidmoresaid not gaining HPC approval was an "oversight."

"That's on me. It was an oversight. I was not thinking about theabatement changing the exterior," Tidmore said, according to thereport. "We will make amends in May (at the next HPC meeting)."

The report related that a resident complaint triggered aninspection of the abatement by the Alabama Department ofEnvironmental Management. The city has not been notified of anyviolations. Messages left for the ADEM inspector were not returnedThursday. Ruth Page Nelson, a resident who said she made attemptsto pitch development projects for the building prior to purchase,addressed the HPC and questioned whether proper notification ofthe pending abatement had been made to ADEM. She also said somehealth hazards could remain because several doors and a windowhave been removed from the apartments.

"There should be an inspection, a cleanup and all open doorsshould be closed up," Nelson said, the report quoted.

Tidmore said there should be no health hazards, the report added."A professional company did this work. The state was notifiedahead of time. No permit is required for this. This is allpropaganda to scare," Tidmore said.

According to the report, Nelson accused Tidmore of actinginappropriately during discussions about potential uses for thebuilding. Tidmore disputes Nelson's assertions and said his onlymistake was failure to notify the HPC about the abatement.Tidmore also serves on the HPC but not on behalf of the DDRA. Hewas appointed by the Festival of Murals. He made three motions toadjourn the meeting but discussion continued for several minutes.

Garry Pearson, who handled the abatement for AlabamaEnvironmental, Inc., said all proper notifications were made andthat no health hazards from floating asbestos fibers exist, thereport said. "There is no danger," Pearson said. "Nothing otherthan grinding or sawing would get any fibers into the air."

Pearson said he planned to provide documentation of ADEMnotification to Tidmore, the report added. HPC member Sam Newtonrequested documentation of proper notification.

Houston County, which contributed $100,000 of the near $200,000purchase price, wants the building demolished and used primarilyfor parking, according to the report. Nelson wanted to refurbishthe building and use it as a job training center. The purchaseclosed Feb. 28. Tidmore said residents were notified by letter onMarch 5 that they had 30 days to vacate. He said a secondnotification was provided April 5 and that two or three residentsremained at that time. Any changes to the building must beapproved by the Historic Preservation Commission.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Riverton School Board Awards Bid for Remediation-----------------------------------------------------------------Ernie Over, writing for County10.com, reported that action atRiverton School Board meeting marks the beginning of the end forthe former Lincoln Elementary School. Trustees awarded a bid forasbestos remediation inside the abandoned structure, and thenawarded a contract for the school's demolition, the report said.

According to the report, Superintendent Terry Snyder said therecently completed analysis of District 25's capacity needsidentified that Lincoln was no longer a viable solution to theDistrict's needs. "We knew that years ago, but the questionresurfaced and we had to redo that evaluation," Snyder told thetrustees. "We moved all the school's population when Aspen Parkopened, it's a small building on only three acres. Four gradelevels need at least seven acres now."

The report related that Snyder recounted the history of theDistrict's offer of the building to other governmental entities."Two of three took the offer seriously, but to bring it back intoservice was just too expensive, and now we have approval from thestate to take it down," he said.

The report further related that the first bid award went toSchroeder Construction of Billings, Mont., in the amount of$66,300 for the asbestos remediation. Seven bidders sought thejob. When the asbestos has been removed from the structure, thendemolition can begin. The second bid that was awarded on April 9went to Precision demolition of Mills, Wyo., for the demolition.The bid totaled $278,373.

"Demolition will begin around June first and will be complete bythe end of the summer," Snyder reported, according to the report."It's time, the building was becoming an eyesore and a maintenanceproblem."

As an aside, the superintendent said he received a call from aschool district patron who wanted two of the windows in thebuilding, the report said. "He said he had to buy them when hisson broke them, so, I said okay, he could have two windows."

In other action at the meeting, trustees accepted anadministrative recommendation to accept a grant award in theamount of $192,888 for Indian Education, the report added. "Themajority of funds will pay for two staff members who supportstudents," Snyder said. "The remainder would buy supplies andprovide staff with professional development on programs to supportNative American students." Trustees also approved the ElementarySchool Handbook for the 2013-14 school year. Snyder said thehandbooks for the middle and high schools would be presented forapproval later.

The walk, according to the report, was organised by Vickie Sykes,40, from Fareham, following the death of her father, GeorgeRoxburgh, who died as a result of being exposed to the killersubstance. George, from Portchester, died in October last year,aged 71, from mesothelioma, a type of cancer caused by inhalingasbestos. He was exposed to it during the 1970s when he worked onnaval bases for a ceiling company.

The report related that Vickie organised the walk with his oldestgrandaughter, Natalie Prescott, 23, also from Fareham, to honourthe memory of her dad.

The report added that the group were raising money for HampshireAsbestos Support and Awareness Group (HASAG). Vickie said: 'Wechose HASAG because they are a local charity and were there forour family the day after my dad was diagnosed, in June 2010. Theysorted out solicitors, doctors and anyone else we need to see.They were fantastic.'

The report further related that group raised around GBP2,000 insponsorship for HASAG, which was double their initial target.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. House Mulls Over Fairness in Claims Act------------------------------------------------------------Jon Campisi, writing for The Pennsylvania Record, reported thatthe state House Judiciary Committee recently held a hearing onHouse Bill 1150, also known as the Fairness in Claims andTransparency Act, or FACT, which would provide for transparency ofclaims made against asbestos bankruptcy trusts and in the tortsystem. The bill is being sponsored by state Rep. Bryan Cutler, aLancaster County Republican. It appears to have close to 30cosponsors, the report said.

According to the report, records show that those who werescheduled to testify included Sam Marshall, the president and CEOof the Insurance Federation of Pennsylvania; Sam Denisco, vicepresident of government affairs for the Pennsylvania Chamber ofBusiness and Industry; Kevin Shivers, executive director of thePennsylvania chapter of the National Federation of IndependentBusiness; as well as a handful attorneys, such as Nicholas P.Vari, of K&L Gates LLP; Peter J. Neeson, of Rawle & Henderson;Marc Scarcella, of Bates White LLC; and Larry Cohan, of AnapolSchwartz.

The bill is designed to address a "glaring loophole in the currentsystem of assessing responsibility for damages in asbestos-relatedsuits which is imposing job-crushing liabilities on manyPennsylvania businesses," Cutler had said in his memorandum tofellow House members, which was sent out on April 2, according tothe report.

The bill is supported by the likes of the Pennsylvania Chamber ofBusiness and Industry, and is opposed by groups including thePennsylvania Association for Justice, which represents triallawyers, the report noted.

The measure, which would require plaintiffs in asbestos lawsuitsto disclose claims they had previously filed against the asbestosbankruptcy trust funds, is similar to a law that was passed by theOhio legislature last year called the Asbestos Transparency Act.It also mirrors a federal bill titled the Furthering AsbestosClaim Transparency, or FACT, which was initially introduced in2012 and reintroduced this year.

The federal measure was debated during a House JudiciarySubcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Lawhearing in Washington last month, the report pointed out. At thattime, the panel's chair, Spencer Bachus, an Arizona Republican,said that the "enemy of any just compensation system is fraud andabuse," and FACT needs passage in order to preserve assets forfuture victims of asbestos injuries. While the federal bill stillsits in committee, some states are moving ahead with their ownversion of the legislation, such as Ohio.

Darren McKinney, of the American Tort Reform Association, toldLegal Newsline late last year that the Ohio law may be the firstof its kind in the nation, the report said. At the time, McKinneywas quoted as saying that, "with the scandal that is double-dipping in the court systems and in trust funds, a statutoryresponse is the only solution."

Here in Pennsylvania, Cutler hopes his bill, the Fairness inClaims and Transparency Act, will put an end to the process knownas "double-dipping," whereby people recover damages throughasbestos trust funds and the civil court system, according to theRecord. "Some may think asbestos litigation is waning, but thesecrippling liabilities continue to affect businesses throughoutPennsylvania, from small businesses that work with asbestosproducts to large manufacturers and employers who are successorcompanies to the original asbestos miners from the 1970's," Cutlerwrote in his memo to fellow lawmakers.

Cutler claims that recent reports showed that between Septemberand December 2010, 45 Pennsylvania-based companies were named asdefendants in asbestos suits, the report said. "The enormousburden of these cases drains resources from these businesses thatcould otherwise be used for economic growth and job development,"Cutler wrote.

The legislator pointed to the problems with so-called "double-dipping," in which an asbestos claimant can technically recovertwice for the same injury -- once through tort litigation and asecond time through the asbestos trust claim process involvingsince-bankrupt companies who have set up trust funds to compensatevictims, the report added. Cutler says his bill would correct the"double-dipping" problem in two ways.

First, it would apply the principles of Pennsylvania's Fair ShareAct to asbestos litigation such that asbestos defendants would beapportioned liability based only on their relative fault, thereport explained. And secondly, FACT would require plaintiffs todisclose all asbestos exposure information and to indicate whetherthey have submitted an asbestos injury claim to a trust fund setup by insolvent companies.

"Disclosure of this information will allow a judge or jury toconsider all asbestos exposures, claims which have been or couldbe submitted to a trust and claims which have been paid by atrust, in some cases as much as $1.6 million per claimant, as partof an asbestos-related suit," Cutler stated in his Housememorandum, according to the report.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Feared in Watford Trust Bldg---------------------------------------------------Adam Binnie, writing for Watford Observer, reported that a womanand her daughter fear they have been exposed to deadly asbestosfibres after moving into a property owned by Watford CommunityHousing Trust.

According to the report, Joanne Halward's daughter Carly was giventhe property in Fleet House on the Holywell Estate in August lastyear, and discovered it needed major repairs. A leaky water tankhad caused damage in the ceilings, as well as spreading damp andmould throughout the house. The mother and daughter attempted toredecorate, only to be told that the damaged ceiling tilescontained asbestos, and the flat needed to be completely refitted.

She said: "The housing trust told us to make do and decorate, sowe have, and now it all has to be redone. All seven asbestosceilings are at risk of collapse and badly damaged. My 18-month-old grandson had a convulsion within weeks of us stripping downthe walls and washing down black mould, he was rushed to hospitalbecause he was having trouble breathing. Now they are saying ourdecorating has caused the damage and claim we are not giving themaccess to carry out the repairs," the report related.

The report said Gareth Lewis, director of property and newbusiness, said the trust was made aware of the damaged ceilingboards in December. He added: "The property has textured ceilingcoatings which contain three to five per cent asbestos fibres.These are unevenly distributed which means that some parts of theceiling will have small traces but other parts will be asbestos-free. As the fibres are held within a strong bond there is verylittle risk of significant release if the ceiling cracks. Howeverthere is a risk of release if the ceiling is abrasively damaged --for example if it is sanded. This is why we state in our tenancyconditions that if a tenant has identified or believes there isasbestos in their home, that they agree to notify the trust beforeinterfering with it or disposing of it. We have offered toreplace them and to redecorate the walls, but have been deniedaccess to carry out this work."

Ms Halward refuted this and claimed the trust had been holding onto the keys to the flat for a month, the report said. She added:"We've been told this property has slipped through the net, theyjust want to do the repairs and put Carly back in there. She'sback at my house and it's very overcrowded."

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chesterfield Family Probes Cause of Death----------------------------------------------------------Derbyshire Times reported that a heartbroker family has launchedan investigation into the death of their mother after an inquestheard how she died of a condition that is often related toexposure to asbestos.

According to the report, Chesterfield coroner's court heard howLinda Christine Hunt, 66, of Church Street, Creswell, died after apost-mortem examination found a malignant mesothelioma tumourwhich, according to pathologist Dr Andrew Hitchcock, is acondition that can be caused by exposure to asbestos in 95% ofcases.

Ms Hunt's relatives opted to adjourn the inquest to try andestablish what may have caused the mesothelioma which they fearmay have been triggered by exposure to asbestos at a former familyhome, the report said.

Following the hearing, daughter Joanne Lowde said: "We just wantto know where mum got this horrible disease from and if we canfind this out this information may help other people. She was sostrong and brave throughout and we never even knew what was wrongwith her until it was too late and now we just want to try andfind out exactly what caused this disease," the report cited.

Ms Hunt, a former warden for the elderly, also suffered withosteoporosis and ischaemic heart disease and she was diagnosedwith mesothelioma after she was admitted to hospital and sadlybecame ill and died on December 6, 2012, the report related. Apost-mortem examination revealed emphysema, pneumonia and a wide-spread, inoperable tumour on the right side of her chest whichfitted with a malignant mesothelioma.

According to the report, Dr Hitchcock gave the cause of death asmesothelioma. He said he did not find asbestos fibres in the lungtissue or any features supporting any exposure to asbestos andconcluded there was no evidence to suggest Ms Hunt's mesotheliomawas asbestos-related. However, he explained that 95% ofmesothelioma cases are said to be caused by exposure to asbestosand five per cent are found not to be asbestos-related where ithas not been possible to demonstrate any relationship to asbestos.

North Derbyshire Deputy Coroner Nigel Anderson adjourned theinquest for a date to be fixed to allow Ms Hunt's family, who arein discussions with solicitors, to make further enquiriesregarding any possible causal links to their late mother's fatalcondition, the report said.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: York Carriageworkers Think Fibro Killed More-------------------------------------------------------------Mike Laycock, writing for The Press, reported that asbestos isalready thought to have claimed more than 140 lives -- but now acampaigner has claimed the true death toll from York's asbestostimebomb may be even higher.

According to the report, Paul Cooper, a former York Carriageworksemployee and trade unionist who now plays a leading role in theYork Asbestos Support Group, has written to York Central MP HughBayley to raise his concerns. He said that as well as causingmesothelioma, he believed asbestos probably led to cancers in manyother parts of the body, including the stomach and the testicles.

He said World Health Organisation research had raised suchconcerns, the report related. Mr Cooper said: "I have, on someoccasions, tried to argue for further investigations into thedeaths of my colleagues where I felt asbestos might be the cause,both with the consultants and the coroner, Donald Coverdale, sadlyto no avail in most cases."

The report said Mr Bayley has written to Geoffrey Podger, chiefexecutive of the Health and Safety Executive, saying 141 formerrailway carriage builders in his constituency had died as a resultof mesothelioma, contracted through working with asbestos at thefactory in Holgate Road. He said Mr Cooper was concerned manymore may have been killed through lung, laryngeal and ovariancancers, as well as possibly cancer of the pharynx, stomach andgastrointestinal cancers.

Mr Podger replied, saying HSE statistics included estimates of thenumber of other types of cancer caused by asbestos in addition tomesothelioma, which included lung, stomach and laryngeal cancer,the report said. "HSE has been open and clear about the fact thatthese cancers are the legacy of past industrial use of asbestosexposure," he said.

York Coroner Donald Coverdale said he had been aware of MrCooper's views for many years, and said he had to comply with thelaw in carrying out his statutory duties, the report added. "If adeath is reported to me and there is no reason to believe it isunnatural or merits any further inquiry, I am not able tocommission a post-mortem examination but am legally obliged toauthorise registration of the death without further ado," he said.

He said that if a post-mortem examination clearly dictated anatural cause of death, he had no jurisdiction to pursue furtherinquiries, but if it were a case of industrial disease orotherwise unnatural, he would hold an inquest, the report furtherrelated.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cwmcarn Councillors Face Options in Fibro School-----------------------------------------------------------------South Wales Argus reported that Cwmcarn high school pupils couldsoon return home if councillors agree to fund more than GBP1million worth of asbestos works -- or alternatively they could besplit up and sent to nearby schools.

According to the report, these are the two options recommended fordiscussion at a meeting to decide the future of the school, whichwas closed last October after a survey found airborne asbestos.Students are currently being taught in Ebbw Vale.

The Argus said a report to members gives five options, butrecommends three be discounted because they are unsuitable. Theyinclude doing nothing, returning pupils to Cwmcarn while work iscarried out, and carrying out asbestos works plus a backlog ofmaintenance work totalling more than GBP3 million. Insteadcouncillors will look at two options. Option four is to removeasbestos and house pupils in temporary classrooms to the cost ofGBP1.048 million, as advised by Ensafe Asbestos Consultants Ltd.This would make the buildings safe for ongoing maintenance and thebuildings could be reoccupied by September. This is the preferredoption of governors.

Option two, the Argus said, suggest sending pupils in Years 7 to 9to Risca Community Comprehensive, Years 10 and 11 toPontllanfraith Comprehensive and sixth formers to Coleg Gwentwhile the council makes a decision on its 21st Century Schoolsrationalisation, which could see three schools closed to tacklesurplus spaces. This is the cheapest option costing aroundGBP300,000. But the report warns the council could face a legalchallenge from governors in the form of a judicial review, if theychose option two.

It says this could discontinue its consultation on the schoolsreorganisation indefinitely, which could have "seriousconsequences" for the council, the report said.

The report concludes that taking into account the legal andfinancial issues, and the best interests of pupils, option four isthe preferred option. If agreed this would be funded from councilreserves.

Head teacher, Jacqui Peplinski wrote on the school's website: "Itfeels very positive that we will have a clear way forward on 17thApril," the report cited.

According to the AP report, the researchers traveled to the IronRange of northeastern Minnesota to announce the findings of their$4.9 million, five-year study into possible links between taconitedust and mesothelioma, a rare cancer of the lung lining caused byexposure to airborne asbestos fibers that has taken the lives of82 taconite workers over the years. Previously released researchconfirmed a 300 percent higher rate of mesothelioma on the Rangethan the general population in Minnesota.

"Our goal was to begin answering questions around how mining andtaconite processing have impacted the health of Minnesotans. Thesestudies have started to uncover those answers," John Finnegan,dean of the university's School of Public Health, said in astatement, AP related.

According to AP, asbestos fibers fall into a family of "elongatedmineral particles" that are present within dust from taconiteoperations. Taconite, a low grade of iron ore, can containasbestos but the types of EMPs generated by iron mining had notpreviously been linked to an increased risk of mesothelioma.

"Researchers did identify a potential link between cumulativeexposure to workplace EMPs and mesothelioma in taconite workers.However, the link is not felt to be certain," the researchers saidin a statement, AP cited. "As a result, the researchers cannot saywith assuredness that dust from taconite operations causesmesothelioma. Further data analysis in this area will continue inthe coming months."

Jeff Mandel, one of the principal researchers, said they know thatthe risk of contracting mesothelioma is higher among people who'veworked longer in the industry, the report related. Unfortunately,he said, researchers have "minimal information" on their exposureto other sources of asbestos that they might have encounteredoutside of iron ore processing.

"It is something that we want to continue to look at, if at allpossible," he said, the report further related. But he also saidit's clear that the industry shouldn't wait for more answers.

"No matter how you look at it, this is dusty work, and it demandsthat workers and employers take responsibility to safeguardthemselves," Mandel told the meeting where they present the studyresults, AP said.

The Taconite Workers Health Study found that death rates in theindustry are also higher than state averages for more common kindsof lung cancer and for heart disease, which suggests that otherhealth conditions are also at work -- and lifestyle appears to bean important factor, the AP report said. The death rates werehigher than expected across the Range from all three diseases andwere not concentrated in any particular location.

The study confirmed that air quality in Iron Range communities isbetter than in most parts of Minnesota in terms of particulates,according to AP. It also found that occupational exposures totaconite dust are generally within safe limits. And it found thatspouses of taconite workers aren't at any higher risk ofcontracting dust-related lung diseases than the general public.

"Although working in the taconite industry increases a person'slifetime risk of mesothelioma, the increase equates to a smallrisk of actually developing the disease. Mesothelioma is still avery rare disease," the statement said, AP cited.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Midwife Diagnosed with Mesothelioma-------------------------------------------------------Tom Marshall, writing for Ham & High, reported that a formermidwife with asbestos-related cancer suspects her time at theWhittington Hospital could be responsible for the disease.

According to the report, Margaret Daly, 69, blames her years atthe hospital in the 1960s for her recent diagnosis of incurablemesothelioma, which is caused by asbestos exposure and leaves herconstantly breathless and suffering chest pains. Now she issearching for answers and has instructed lawyers Irwin Mitchell tohelp her secure justice before it is too late.

"The news I'm suffering from this terrible illness came completelyout of the blue," she said, the report cited.

She worked at the hospital in Magdala Avenue, Highgate, from 1964to 1969 and lived in nurses' quarters there, the report related.She also suspects her time at the Shotley Bridge Hospital inNewcastle, from 1959 to 1964, may have contributed.

"The two hospitals were really old and decrepit buildings,particularly the nurse's accommodation at Whittington," she said,the report added.

The mother-of-one, who now lives in County Durham, is calling foranyone with information about the use of the deadly substance atthe Whittington in the 1960s to come forward, the report said.

Solicitor Isobel Lovett said: "It can take decades for victimslike Margaret to develop the debilitating conditions for whichthere is sadly no cure," according to the report.

A spokesman for Whittington Health said the hospital containsasbestos "in common with many buildings constructed in the 19thand 20th centuries," the report said. She added: "The hospitalmanages this in accordance with current regulations. We are sorryto hear of Margaret Daly's condition."

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tasmania Unions Seeks Assurance of Safe Removal----------------------------------------------------------------Blair Richards, writing for The Mercury, reported that UnionsTasmania wants assurances that asbestos removal is being donesafely at the National Broadband Network worksites, afterreceiving calls from concerned workers.

Asbestos-lined telephone pits are being dug up in streets as partof the fibre rollout, according to the report. Constructionactivity on the NBN rollout is in progress in 45 Tasmanian suburbsand towns.

Unions Tasmania secretary Kevin Harkins said he made a report toWorkplace Standards about a fortnight ago after he received a callfrom an NBN worker who was concerned about exposure to asbestos,the report related. Mr Harkins had another call this week from anNBN worker with similar concerns.

"If they were satisfied in their own mind that the process waskeeping them safe they wouldn't be ringing me," he said, thereport cited. "I rang Workplace Standards and asked them toinvestigate it thoroughly, and I couldn't say what's happenedsince then. I haven't heard back in detail."

A spokeswoman for Workplace Standards said the unearthing ofasbestos from the communications pits being used for the NBN was"nothing out of the ordinary," the report said.

In a letter written to the head of a Launceston childcare centre,which queried the removal of asbestos near the centre, seniorWorkplace Standards inspector Ivan Ebdon said asbestos was beingtreated with caution during the NBN rollout, the report related.Mr Ebdon said telephone pits were being wet cut before beingexposed to digging to keep any asbestos safely in the pit. Drypits could be sprayed with a water PVA adhesive to bind asbestosfibres. Any worker removing asbestos wore protective gear whileother workers kept a distance of 10m. Asbestos removal signs wereposted to alert the public, the report said.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widower of Meso Victim Seeks Help From Colleagues------------------------------------------------------------------Adam Care, writing for ThisisWiltshire.co.uk, reported that awidower whose wife died from an asbestos-related cancer hasappealed for her former colleagues to help as he fights forcompensation.

According to the report, Kay Brunsden died in August 2011 frommesothelioma, a type of lung cancer linked to asbestos inhalation.Husband Derek, of Stockley Lane, Calne, is now asking anyone whoworked with her at Wiltshire Council, especially in the highwaysdepot in Lancaster Road, Bowerhill, between 1986 and 1988, to comeforward to help his claim against the council.

He said: "Kay was very fit and healthy and we were enjoying ourlives together. She was not exposed to asbestos in any other placeduring her lifetime. It is hard to accept her life was cruelly cutshort as a result of inhaling asbestos at work," the report cited.

It is believed Mrs Brunsden was exposed to asbestos fibres duringrenovation work at the depot on old buildings there, includingformer WW2 aircraft hangars, the report said.

"Kay worked four days a week and we both remember refurbishmentwork going on. I used to collect her and she would be covered inwhite dust," according to Mr Brunsden.

The report related that the case is being handled by solicitorHelen Grady. She said: "By the late 1980s, the dangers of asbestoshad been known for many decades. It would appear that Kay was notgiven any warnings or advice in relation to this asbestosexposure."

A Wiltshire Council spokesman said: "We are unable to comment asthere is an ongoing case. However, we have a comprehensiveasbestos management plan in place to ensure the risks associatedwith it are minimised."

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Baron and Budd Warns Fibro Exposure Continues--------------------------------------------------------------When Surgeon General Regina Benjamin issued a public statement onApril 1 alerting Americans to the health risks of all forms ofasbestos at any level of exposure, she dedicated two paragraphs tothe special hazards associated with disturbing latent asbestos:"Anyone who disturbs asbestos is at risk," she warned. Disturbinglatent asbestos can release billions of invisible fibers into theair, where they can be ingested.

Asbestos disturbance can occur during demolitions and renovationprojects, such as the $6 million construction project underwaysince last August at East Bank Middle School in Kanawha Country,WV. Inspectors have located several areas in the 1960sinfrastructure since October that tested positive for asbestos.Kanawha Facilities Director Chuck Wilson is quick to emphasizethat all the demolitions took place when students were away onholiday or during weekends.

Asthmatic six-grader Ivy Davis, however, is struggling harder tobreathe as the project continues. Ivy explained on camera that shewas very nervous about coming back after Spring break: "When I getin there," she said, "I notice I can't breathe that well and Istart coughing a lot where the dust has been stirred. Her wheezinghas worsened, too.

East Bank students were scheduled to return Tuesday, April 9,after Spring Break as parents voiced louder concerns.In fact the half-century-old infrastructure was stripped to itspipes and wiring in order to complete the project's goals byAugust 2013: foremost is installation of a new HVAC airconditioning and heating system which Wilson says the school hasbeen without for 3-4 years. Other updates include modernizingceilings, rooftops, ductwork, and floor tiling -- all of which"required demolition in numerous parts of the building," saidWilson. "It's not been done while any kids are in school and it'sbeen glove-bagged, and we're really heavily regulated on how thisoccurs," he said. But Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)official literature states: "During renovation and removalactivities, risks from exposure are greatly increased"

Another sample from the boiler room was sent for analysis Monday,which takes 24 hours to process. Wilson stated optimism that thesamples would test negative, adding he believes no harm will cometo students because of the air, since certified professionals haveproperly scrubbed all the trouble spots. Parents wonder why theirchildren would be allowed to approach the building before testresults were confirmed.

Recognized mesothelioma law firm Baron and Budd's president andmanaging shareholder Russell Budd says, "We defend mesotheliomasufferers 24/7. I am deeply disturbed that school children shouldbe allowed anywhere near the handling and disposal of asbestos-containing material."

About Baron and Budd

Baron and Budd's attorneys have championed mesothelioma sufferersfor 35 years, achieving some of the largest victories on recordincluding a $48 million verdict for a California mesotheliomapatient and his family last year against Union Carbide, asubsidiary of Dow Chemical (Bobbie Izell, et al. v. Union CarbideCorp., et al., Los Angeles County, Case No. 4674). It was thelargest of its kind in 2012 and recognized among the National LawJournal's "Top 100 Verdicts."

Baron and Budd is a repeat platinum sponsor of the anti-asbestosadvocate group ADAO (Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization)whose weeklong observance of Global Asbestos Awareness Week (April1-7) utilized a singularly powerful platform to blanket the worldwith one message: No form of asbestos is safe at any level ofexposure. The firm opened its doors in 1977 to help fight thebattles of those injured from exposure. The firm is a staunch ADAOally; together they are calling for the US to stop importingasbestos from Brazil and join a worldwide asbestos ban. To date 55nations have signed the ban including all European Union members-- but the US has not. Call 866.855.1229 (day or night) or visit:http://baronandbudd.com/areas-of-practice/mesothelioma-attorney/.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro-Containing Cement Found in Navuso School---------------------------------------------------------------Torika Tokalau, writing for The Fiji Times Online, reported thatthe Occupational Health and Safety department of the Ministry ofLabour has advised Navuso Secondary School to change the cementpipes that it believes contains asbestos material. The school hadrecently discovered white substance in its water pipes.

The OHS Department visited the school this month to conduct itsinvestigations, according to the report.

"We have suggested to the school to work closely with relevantauthorities and change the cement pipes to PVC or steel pipes as amedium-term measure," the deputy secretary for OHS and WorkersCompensation at the Ministry of Labour, Osea Cawaru, told theTimes Online. "At this stage we are only assuming it's asbestosbecause we could not obtain a sample for analysis.

"We wanted to obtain a sample and confirm the presence of asbestosthrough polarised microscopic analysis but it was a very hard anddangerous task to do because the pipes laid are a few feetunderground and digging might have affected the integrity of thepipe if it is asbestos or any form of asbestos containingmaterial."

Mr Cawaru said they would have to wait until the school decidedwhat to do with the pipes, the report related. "We formallyrecommended to the school not to disturb the pipes except whenthere is repair works next time. Then they should inform usimmediately before any work continues for precautionary measuresto be put in place."

He said if the material was confirmed to be asbestos, they wouldcarry out a risk assessment to ascertain if there was any damageor deterioration to the pipes, the report added. "Immediately wewould liaise with the school and put control measures depending onthe state of the material. For example, if it's still in itssolid state and intact, the pipes should not be disturbed. Ifdamaged, the pipe should be removed. If the asbestos pipe isfound to be damaged and in a deteriorated state then it will berecommended for immediate removal," said Mr Cawaru.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ball-Chatham Solicits Bids for Fibro Removal-------------------------------------------------------------Dan Petrella, writing for The State Journal-Register, reportedthat the The Ball-Chatham School District is soliciting bids forthe removal of asbestos at three schools.

According to the report, the work is related to remodeling andreconstruction projects that will be paid for with a $35 millionbond issue voters approved in November, Dave Murphy, thedistrict's director of facilities and grounds, wrote in an email.

Asbestos is a known carcinogen and can cause other lung problems,and strict regulations must be followed during its removal, thereport related. The work at Glenwood Intermediate School andChatham and Ball elementary schools will be done in compliancewith federal and state regulations and will be completed when thebuildings are not occupied, Murphy said.

"All work will be monitored full time by an independent projectmanager to ensure compliance with regulations, and access to workareas is restricted to authorized personnel," he told the newsagency.

The work at Ball Elementary, expected to cost $35,000 and to beginnext month, will involve the removal of tile, pipe insulation andcaulk, the report said. A $12,000 project at GlenwoodIntermediate this summer will remove roofing material where anaddition will connect to the existing school. Work at ChathamElementary this summer will remove tile, pipe insulation andceilings. It is expected to cost $20,000. The work all will bepaid for with bond proceeds.

The report related that by nearly a 2-1 margin, voters in Novemberapproved the sale of $35 million in bonds to pay for additions andupgrades at all six of the district's schools. The work is neededto keep up with the district's growing student population and tokeep buildngs up to date. Glenwood and Ball elementary schools,Glenwood Intermediate and Glenwood High School all are slated foradditions. Chatham Elementary and Glenwood Middle School will seesmaller improvements.

Aside from the asbestos removal, work is scheduled to begin thissummer on the additions to the two elementary schools and theintermediate school, the report said. The portion of BallElementary built in 1926 will be demolished and replaced with anew structure. At Glenwood Intermediate, there will be a 13,000-square-foot addition. The work at Glenwood Elementary willinclude three additions that will add 14 classrooms, along withparking lot and driveway improvements.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal Begins in Penryn Hall Renovation---------------------------------------------------------------Greg Fountain, writing for The Packet, reported that work startedon the removal of asbestos and treatment of woodworm at the StuartStephen Memorial Hall in Penryn. The first phase of renovationsat the hall will also include replacing the flat roof and makingsure the building is watertight.

"First fix" plumbing for the central heating is being carried outas well, the report said.

Town clerk Michelle Davey said: "All the work has been funded bygrants for the first phase -- The second phase is planned forlater this year and will include refurbishments of the entrancehall, toilets and kitchen and the completion of the centralheating. Funding permitting, it should all be complete for theautumn when it starts to get cold again," the report cited.

She added: "As usual, we need the understanding and patience ofour regular hall users while the work is being carried out. Itwill all be worth it in the end!," the report further cited.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Dumped in Beckenham Road-----------------------------------------------Patrick Grafton-Green, writing for New Shopper, reported that aroad in Beckenham is being used as a dumping ground for asbestos,putting people's health at risk, says a man who lives there.

John Clasper, 65, of Downs Bridge Road, says he has found crushedup asbestos on the road a number of times, the report related.

He told News Shopper: "It poses a really bad health hazard in thearea, especially coming into summer as it gets very dry. At themoment, because of wet weather, it gets washed away but if it'sdry people, including young children, will breathe in the dust.The council say they will send men to scrape it up, but I haven'tseen any evidence of this. It is highly dangerous -- I have twogreat grandchildren aged four and six and I'm not sure if I cankeep having them round because I am worried about the risk."

Mr Clasper added that school children, from Bishop ChallonerSchool, also walk down the road, the report related. He said: "Ioften find a strip of asbestos dust the full length of road -- itis not very conspicuous. If you are not looking for it you're notlikely to notice it, but the road is really highly contaminated."

It is thought the asbestos is crushed up so that it blends in withthe gravel on the road, the report said.

Executive Councillor for Environment Colin Smith told the newsagency: "We have cleared fly-tipping in this road but the wet andwintry weather on the unmade road surface has seriously hinderedthe initial identification of location and the final clearancework, which will be undertaken shortly. If there is a healthrisk, our analysis has concluded that this is low but this doesnot mean we will not take action. We will not hesitate toprosecute an offender if the information becomes available."

ASBESTOS UPDATE: HSE Raps Waltham Forest Counsel Over Hall Fibro----------------------------------------------------------------Daniel Binns, writing for This is Local London, reported that asafety watchdog has rapped Waltham Forest Council over itshandling of asbestos at the town hall.

According to the report, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) hasissued a series of improvement orders on the authority stating ithas failed to draw up legally-required plans for, and records of,managing the cancer-causing fibre at the site in Forest Road,Walthamstow. Last year it emerged that all three types ofasbestos -- including its most dangerous blue variety -- had beenfound in multiple rooms of the town hall, potentially puttingdozens at risk.

The report said it was then revealed that the council had knownabout the issue since the 1980s but had continued to storesensitive documents in one of the rooms affected.

The authority then announced it would have to destroy around 5,000of the documents amid concerns they may have been contaminated,although it pledged to electronically copy some "important"financial and legal paperwork, the report related.

The news comes as the HSE continues its investigation into thecouncil over the handling of asbestos at all its buildings in theborough, the report said. This includes the former Warwick Schoolfor Boys site in Brooke Road, Walthamstow, where pupils at StMary's Primary School were due to relocate until asbestos was alsofound there last summer.

The report related that in February the HSE launched aninvestigation into the council's handling of water systems in someschools, following concerns there was a risk of the potentiallydeadly Legionella bacteria developing.

The HSE asbestos improvement order, published this week, statesthe council failed to "draw up a suitable and sufficient plan tomanage the asbestos or any asbestos containing substances" and hadfailed to "record how the plan will be implemented," the reportsaid.

Nick Tiratsoo, a community worker of Odessa Road in Leytonstone,helped publicly uncover news of asbestos at the town hall when hetried unsuccessfully to obtain election records from the councillast year, the report added. He told the Guardian: "The councilendlessly trumpets its alleged merits in public, but thisdevelopment once again exposes the tawdry everyday realities. Thetown hall is used by thousands of people every month, both staffand visitors, yet the council now stands condemned for failing totake the elementary steps which are required to deal with thebuilding's asbestos. Moreover, we know that HSE investigationscontinue on other council sites. Asbestos is too dangerous to messaround with. Perhaps [council leader] Cllr Chris Robbins can tellus exactly what is going on?"

ASBESTOS UPDATE: MSU Historian Wins Fellowship to Study Asbestos----------------------------------------------------------------Evelyn Boswell, writing for MSU News Service, reported that aMontana State University historian who is a world-renowned expertin Japanese environmental history has received a $48,000fellowship that will allow him to pursue a global project onasbestos.

According to the report, Regents' Professor Brett Walker was oneof 175 scholars, artists and scientists across the nation to win a2013 John Simon Guggenheim Fellowship. He and D. Graham Burnettof Princeton University were the only fellows in the "History ofScience, Technology and Economics" category.

In the midst of checking emails from students, "I got a piece ofgood news," Walker told the news agency.

Nicol Rae, dean of MSU's College of Letters and Science, told thenews agency, "I'm very proud of Professor Walker. This adds to hislong list of scholarly achievements and brings credit to thecollege and the Department of History and Philosophy. Brett is astellar faculty member."

According to the report, Walker applied for the fellowship bywriting a proposal titled, "The Slow Dying: Asbestos and theUnmaking of the Modern World." Winning the fellowship will allowhim to pursue a project that will look at the possibility ofglobal poisoning as industrial infrastructures around the worldare destroyed by terrorism, war or natural disasters, or begin todecay, Walker said. The poisoning could relate to the World TradeTowers' destruction in 2001, the tsunami that struck northeastJapan in 2011 or basically a century of industrial infrastructurethat is slowly decaying.

The report related that the fellowship will help fund travel toTurkey, South Africa, Russia, Quebec and Japan where he willexamine archives, conduct interviews and carry out other fieldwork, Walker said. The project will also involve Libby, Mont., andother locations in the United States.

The report added that he will incorporate his findings in theclasses he teaches in the MSU Department of History, Philosophyand Religious Studies, Walker said. He hopes it might dovetailwith projects in the Institute on Ecosystems at MSU. He expects itwill lead him to expand his asbestos research to related projects,such as the effects of moving materials containing asbestos acrossnational borders.

According to the report, Walker served five years as head of MSU'sDepartment of History, Philosophy and Religious Studies. TheMontana Board of Regents named him a Regents Professor of Historyin 2008.

Walker, 46, was born in Bozeman to MSU graduates Nelson Walker andLinda Harbers, the report said. He spent most of his summersgrowing up on a family wheat and barley farm near Cascade. Itbelongs to his aunt and uncle and MSU graduates Lee and SueBelote. Every year when the family left the farm to return to SanFrancisco and other cities where his father's work took them,Walker said he vowed to himself, "I have got to get back."He was thrilled when a job in Japanese history opened up at MSUand allowed him to return full-time to Montana 14 years ago,Walker said.

Walker taught at Yale University before coming to MSU, and he hashad the opportunity to return there to teach, the report related.He has also received other job offers from Stanford University,Arizona State University and the University of Minnesota, butWalker said he has strong loyalties to Bozeman, Montana and MSU.Walker's Guggenheim Fellowship is the third for MSU. The other twowere won by art professors Eric Hongisto and Deborah Butterfield.Hongisto won his in 2005, and Butterfield won hers in 1980.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Seeks Justice for Meso-Victim Husband------------------------------------------------------------Reddith Advertiser reported that the widow of a former factoryworker left heartbroken after her husband died of an asbestos-related cancer is appealing to his former colleagues to help inher battle for justice.

According to the report, grandfather-of-11 Albert Heaton fromNorth Redditch died of mesothelioma, a cancer on the lining of thelungs caused by inhaling asbestos dust, in December 2010 aged 71years. Devastated by her loss, wife of 49 years Sheila instructedexperts at law firm Irwin Mitchell to try to get in touch withAlbert's former colleagues at Granville Tin Plate Co Ltd inBilston.

The report said it is believed they may be able to provide vitalinformation about the presence of asbestos and working conditionsat the factory while Albert worked there as a duct maker andfitter from 1954 to 1960.

Kim Barrett, from Irwin Mitchell, told the news agency: "Thefamily have been left shocked and unable to come to terms withAlbert's death because he deteriorated so quickly. Sheilaremembered Albert's time at Granville's factory as he worked therewhen they began courting and she used to work nearby so he wouldvisit her on his lunch hour. As well as making ducting in thefactory, Albert used to visit other sites where he was responsiblefor removing old ducting and fitting the replacement which couldalso be a dusty job."

The report related that Sheila noticed Albert was short of breathat the end of 2009 and he had lost a lot of weight before this.By the end of November 2010 he was so weak he could no longer getround the house and he was admitted to the Alexandra Hospital.

The report further related that a scan revealed Albert had cancerin his lungs but he was too ill for doctors to carry out a biopsyto confirm the type of cancer and he was sent home on December 6where he died three days later.

Sheila, 72, told the news agency: "Albert was my world and I stillstruggle to accept he is no longer here. We met at school andbegan courting soon after we left so I can barely remember my lifewithout him. We should have been planning our 50th weddinganniversary when he became ill but never got chance to make themilestone."

She added: "Albert was never one to complain so when his healthbegan deteriorating it was difficult to know how poorly he was.Once he was admitted to hospital we knew it was serious but neverimagined he would be taken from us so quickly. It washeartbreaking but also made me angry to learn that he had diedfrom something he had no control over through being exposed solong ago."

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cape City Council Approves Remediation Payment---------------------------------------------------------------Erin Ragan, writing for Southeast Missourian, reported that CapeGirardeau's city council voted to move forward with steps invarious projects throughout the city during the meeting April 15.

According to the report, asbestos remediation is complete at theformer Convention & Visitors Bureau building on Broadway that soonwill be torn down. The council voted to approve final payment forthe remediation, which cost just more than $20,000.

The report said City manager Scott Meyer said demolition of thebuilding is likely to begin by early summer. For now, he said, thesite will be turned into a parking lot, but the city also will belooking for a next best use for the space. The total cost of thedemolition is estimated at $125,000. The project is among severalthe council approved earlier this spring to be paid for withrevenue the city receives from the operation of Isle Casino CapeGirardeau.

The Convention & Visitors Bureau moved from the former bankbuilding at the corner of Broadway and Main Street in 2007 intothe Himmelberger-Harrison building at 400 Broadway, where it stillis located, the report related.

The council also approved a time extension for a project that willconnect Cape LaCroix Trail to the Shawnee Sports Complex in twoareas, the report further related. Assistant city manager KellyGreen said the project is being funded through federal grants. Theproject will add two segments to the existing trail, one of whichwill start at West End Boulevard and Linden Street and extend tothe current south end of the trail. The other will connect thetrail to the complex and West End Boulevard at Highway 74.Residential areas near both segments that will gain walking accessto the complex when the project is complete, Green said. Work isexpected to begin in September and be complete by spring.

Green said the additions are one step in eventually connecting atrail near the downtown riverwalk with Cape LaCroix Trail, whichbegins north of the Osage Centre on Kingshighway and stretchessouth toward Highway 74, the report said. The ultimate goal is tomake the trail into a large loop that would take it all the wayaround the city, according to a master plan devised by the city'sparks and recreation department with the help of a consultant.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Nebraska Men Sued for Improper Dumping-------------------------------------------------------Pat Guth, writing for Mesothelioma Cancer Alliance, reported thattwo men charged with the demolition of an old motel in the town ofFalls City, Nebraska are now being sued by the U.S. Attorney'sOffice in Omaha because they failed to properly abide by state andfederal laws governing the removal and disposal of asbestos-containing materials.

An article in the Lincoln Journal Star reported that the men inquestion worked for Vision 20-20 Inc., the company that tore downthe old Stephenson Motel and built the new Vision Inn Motel at thesame location. Brian D. Palmer was a director and Jerry R. McKimwas an officer for the company. Both are named in the suit.

According to prosecutors, the men violated laws associated withthe Clean Water Act when they failed to obtain a permit fordisposal of asbestos materials and then proceeded to dispose ofthe toxic material in a ditch that led to U.S. waterways, namelythe Missouri and Big Nemaha Rivers.

When asbestos removal occurs as it did at the Stephenson Motel,the material must then be properly packaged and disposed of onlyin landfills that are licensed to receive this kind of toxicwaste. This must occur because errant asbestos fibers can maketheir way into the air where they can be inhaled. As a result, anyone who suffers asbestos exposure could one day develop suchrespiratory diseases as asbestosis, pleural plaques, and thecancer known as mesothelioma.

The investigation was led by the Nebraska Department ofEnvironmental Quality (DEQ) and the case was then filed by thefederal government.

"To our knowledge the disposal was cleaned up and there is noongoing health threat that we're aware of," said DEQ spokespersonBrian McManus, assuring area residents that they were in no dangerof asbestos exposure at this time, the report said.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Found in Saskatchewan Civic Buildings------------------------------------------------------------The StarPhoenix reported that asbestos has been found in more thana dozen civic buildings, but will remain contained unless it isdisturbed, states a report going to city committee.

According to the report, responding to a question from Coun. PatLorje, city administrators stated there are 14 buildings known tocontain asbestos, with another 75 "likely" containing thesubstance.

The asbestos is contained in heating pipe insulation coverings andwill not become airborne unless the coverings are disturbed, itstated, the report related. City administration will also conductfurther assessments to ensure protection of workers and thepublic, the report stated.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Causes Fawley Plumber's Death-------------------------------------------------------Southern Daily Echo reported that a plumber died years after beingexposed to asbestos, an inquest heard.

According to the report, Arthur George Avery, 80, died at his homein The Pentagon, Fawley, in October last year following a longillness. An inquest at Southampton Coroner's Court was told howhe was diagnosed with an asbestos-related lung disease in 2010.

A post mortem was carried out on Mr Avery, which found theprincipal cause of his death was mesothelioma and ischemic heartdisease, the report related. Southampton coroner Keith Wisemanrecorded a verdict of death by industrial disease.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Found Dumped in Curragh Plains-----------------------------------------------------Vicki Weller, writing for Kildare Nationalist, reported that aquantity of potentially lethal asbestos has been found dumped inan area of the Curragh plains frequently used by children andfamilies.

According to the report, the discovery was made on Saturday by aperson out walking near the roadway known as 'Hollow Road', whichjoins the main road alongside the popular Donnolly's Hollow to theCurragh Golf Club premises.

The asbestos material involved was a section of roof sheeting,comprised of around a dozen tiles, some of which were broken orchipped, which had presumably been dumped there from a vehicle atsome point, the report said.

Newbridge community activist Jason Turner (Tus Nua) told the***Kildare Nationalist*** that he had been informed of the findand was given to understand that the material concerned was likelyto contain the Chrysotile type of asbestos, known as "whiteasbestos," the report related.

"Asbestos is especially dangerous when it is broken or chipped andit appears that some of these tiles were actually in pieces. It isextremely dangerous to have this happening in an area likeDonnolly's Hollow where children are playing and people arewalking dogs," he told the news agency. Adding that he believedthis "was not the first time" that similar potentially hazardousmaterial had been dumped on the plains, Mr Turner said the issueof "mindless" illegal dumping was one which needed to beaddressed. He also noted that the material was still in place onMonday morning, saying he was "surprised" that it could not betaken away more quickly.

Asbestos, which is known to cause cancer, is banned by the EU andin Ireland under the 2005 Health and Safety Act, the report said.When found in any location, it requires expert handling fordisposal and it is understood that in this instance, both the armyauthorities and Kildare Co Council's Litter Warden were informedof the find.

A Kildare Co Council spokesperson told the ***KildareNationalist*** that the council was aware of the find but addedthat it was the Curragh Rangers who were taking responsibility forthe disposal of the material, the report added. "So far as we areaware, they are arranging for a private company to come and removethe material, hopefully today," she said.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: District 112 Teacher Questions Fibro Removal-------------------------------------------------------------Denys Bucksten and John P. Huston, writing for the ChicagoTribune, reported that North Shore School District 112 was finedtwo years ago for multiple violations regarding asbestos removalprojects at several of its schools dating back to 2007, but oneteacher is still seeking answers.

Steve Bartel, a Lincoln School fifth grade teacher, appearedbefore the school board recently to ask that it "come clean on theasbestos violations that have taken place over the years, and tolet the public and the staff know what happened and not keep itquiet anymore," the report said.

Work at Elm Place, Indian Trail and Sherwood schools was stoppedin July 2007 when the Illinois Department of Public Healthdiscovered asbestos removal and record-keeping violations, thereport related. Work was permitted to resume a month later, andthe district maintains that air quality testing has shown no one'shealth was put at risk at any of its facilities.

Bartel worries that asbestos removal work a year prior -- in 2006-- at Lincoln and other schools may have slipped through thecracks, "where those schools were most likely left dirty, if whathappened at Sherwood, Elm Place and Indian Trail are anyindication," the report said.

District 112 officials say they are confident the work was handledproperly, the report related. "There have been no issues wherewe're concerned we put anyone's health at risk," said School BoardPresident Bruce Hyman.

District spokeswoman Andi Rosen said that, by law, an air qualitytest is performed on each school facility following asbestosremoval, but by a different company than did the work, the reportfurther related. "There was no indication (of danger)," Rosensaid. "Every project got clearance afterwards. If they hadconcerns about those other schools it would have been investigatedearlier."

She said the violations came from a licensed sub-contractor thatwas performing the work in 2007, and that a different company didasbestos work in 2006, the report also related. "School districtsdon't take on this kind of work with their own employees, so yourely on licensed contractors who are licensed by the state," Rosensaid. "Ultimately when you hire contractors you are stillresponsible."

According to the report, District 112 paid a $10,000 fine in April2011, as part of a publicized settlement after Illinois AttorneyGeneral Lisa Madigan's office alleged 12 counts of EnvironmentalProtection Act and other regulation violations related to asbestosand air quality at Elm Place, Indian Trail, Lincoln, Red Oak andSherwood schools. The consent order also acknowledged that thedistrict spent $52,000 on asbestos projects during the 2009-10school year at Elm Place, Green Bay, Lincoln, Red Oak and Sherwoodschools.

As part of the settlement, the district was directed to file anannual report to the Illinois Department of Public Healthdetailing its asbestos training documentation, management plan andother materials, the report said.

Bartel, a teacher for 25 years -- 20 of them at District 112 --has pressed district officials over the years to identifyindividuals exposed to airborne asbestos, but said he has been metwith indifference and resistance, the report related.

"I can't understand how they can be so insensitive to peoplehaving been exposed to fibers that are linked to asbestosis andmesothelioma," he told the news agency.

Bartel said after a March 20 school board meeting that it was hisfirst appearance before the board, and it was driven byfrustration over years of making Freedom of Information Actrequests for documents, unanswered emails, and unreturned phonecalls, according to the report. Bartel, 59, said his persistentcampaign has drawn harsh words, veiled threats "about crossing theline" and, in his opinion, a contrived grievance about hisclassroom comportment, eventually settled with a reprimand letterin his personnel file.

District 112 Supt. David Behlow, who joined the district in July2009, said he is unaware of any animus directed toward Bartelduring the teacher's campaign to alert the schools about asbestosissues, the report said. "What I can tell you is that the safetyof the staff and children is my number one priority," Behlow said."Any issue brought to our attention we will address immediately."

According to The Advertiser, reports say an excavator unearthed alarge amount of asbestos last week with about 12 workers believedto have been in the immediate area at the time. An exclusion zonehas been established, but there are fears exposed contractorswerent properly decontaminated, one news report said.

Workers recently returned to the site after three weeks of closurerelated to traces of potentially lethal legionella found indrinking water, the report related.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal Underway at Vacated Ill. School--------------------------------------------------------------Steve Stout, writing for The Times, reported that crews areworking on asbestos abatement inside the former Central Schoolbuilding along the Illinois River in Ottawa to prepare for thecondemned building's upcoming demolition.

According to the report, the city officially took the title to thevacated school property along with 16 surrounding acres for$375,000 from the Ottawa Elementary School District in February.

The money for the purchase and the ongoing mandatory improvementscame out of a nearly $2 million grant awarded to the city lastyear from the federal Hurricane Ike flood recovery fundsadministered by the state, the report said.

"Once we get the building demolished and the site cleaned up, weplan to begin a very public process as how best to use theproperty," Mayor Robert Eschbach, told the news agency. "We arecurrently reviewing proposals from professional planningconsultants who specialize in small town and riverfrontdevelopments for ideas on what could be done with the space."

Eschbach further told the news agency: "I expect by early summerto be well into the planning process. The city wants to develop aconsensus between the professional planners and our residents onwhat to do with the property."

The mayor said town hall meetings will be scheduled to discuss thepossibilities, the report related.

Reviewing the progress, Ottawa Building and Zoning Official MikeSutfin was pleased to see the abatement work on schedule, thereport further related. "They should have the work completed inanother three to four weeks," said Sutfin.

Looking around the expansive riverfront acreage, Sutfin said it iseasy to imagine having next year's wine and jazz festival orRiverfest on the property, the report said. "This is a greatpiece of land," he said.

Asbestos abatement project manager Ziggy Bryndal, of Chicago, saidthe mostly empty building is secure at all times and is off limitsto the public during the asbestos removal work as it is ahazardous area, according to the report.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wife Contacts Cancer From Husband's Overalls-------------------------------------------------------------Essex County Standard reported that a wife died from a rare formof cancer she contracted through washing asbestos from herhusband's work uniform.

According to the report, an inquest at Chelmsford Crown Courtheard on Wednesday how Janet Potton, of Panfield Lane, Braintree,75, passed away at Broomfield Hospital on December 3 last yearfrom mesothelioma. The cancer is normally affects people exposedto asbestos and coroner Caroline Beasley-Murray was told how MrsPotton's husband had worked with the substance in a factory job.

It is thought she came into contact with asbestos when washing theoveralls her husband wore for his work, the report related.

Concluding, Mrs Beasley-Murray said: "Janet Potton died ofindustrial disease of mesothelioma. Looking at the evidence, onthe balance of probability this lady was exposed to asbestos whilewashing her husband's overalls," the report said.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: St. Louis Park Biz Cited for Asbestos Violations-----------------------------------------------------------------Ryan Gauthier, writing for St. Louis Park Patch, reported that aSt. Louis Park business is among more than 50 violations writtenup by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency since the start of2013.

According to the report, SK&N Environmental Safety Services, Inc.,which is based in St. Louis Park, was cited for an asbestosviolation earlier this year. The company faces a fine of $7,250from the MPCA. Penalties collected by the MPCA throughout thefirst quarter of 2013 total more than $190,000, with 20% of thosecases for various air quality violations totaling more than$51,000.

The report said MPCA imposes the monetary penalties as part of itsoverall enforcement process. Staff members at the MPCA alsoprovide assistance, support and information to help the companiesget into compliance with regulations upon request.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Defendant Removes PI Suit to Federal Court-----------------------------------------------------------Bethany Krajelis, writing for The Madison-St. Clair Record,reported that one of more than two dozen defendants in an asbestoslung cancer lawsuit has removed the matter to federal court.

According to the report, United Technologies Corp. (UTC) filed anotice to remove the suit that William Wood filed in July from theMadison County Circuit Court to the U.S. District Court for theSouthern District of Illinois. Wood sued UTC and 27 othercompanies, claiming that he developed lung cancer as a directresult of being exposed to the defendants' asbestos-containingproducts.

The report related that he worked as an aircraft electrician, aswell as a manufacturing and construction worker, from 1960 to 1981and spent time at numerous job sites in Ohio and West Virginia,his complaint states. Asserting that the defendants should haveknown about the dangers associated with asbestos, Wood's eight-count complaint seeks more than $50,000 and includes claims fornegligence, willful and wanton misconduct, conspiracy, negligentspoliation of evidence and strict liability.

The report noted that the increasing number of nationwide lungcancer suits has been dubbed a new trend in asbestos litigation.Attorneys discussed it last month at the "Cutting-Edge Issues inAsbestos Litigation Conference" in Beverley Hills, Calif.

Like the removal notice UTC filed in the Leggett case, which namesit and 19 other companies as defendants, UTC pointed to the U.S.Code's federal officer removal provision to remove Wood's suitfrom state court to federal court, the report related. Thisprovision allows parties to remove suits if they can prove theyacted under the direction of a federal officer, raise a colorablefederal defense to the claims and show a causal nexus between theclaims and acts performed.

The plaintiff in Leggett last month filed a motion to remand thecase back to state court, according to the report. CBS Corp., oneof about 30 defendants in the Spells suit, also asserted thefederal officer removal provision to remove its case to federalcourt.

UTC asserts that it is entitled to the removal provision becauseit acted as a government contractor when it manufactured aircraftengines for use by the U.S. Air Force, the report said. Wood, itnotes, worked as an aircraft electrician in the Air Force from1965 to 1969.

Since the removal notice was filed, U.S. District Court JudgesMichael Reagan and J. Phil Gilbert have both recused themselvesfrom hearing the case, the report related. An order enteredApril 18 shows that Judge William Stiehl has been assigned to thecase.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hazards Found at Hakea Prison----------------------------------------------Beatrice Thomas, The West Australian, reported that The Departmentof Corrective Services has been ordered to fix a litany ofasbestos hazards at Hakea Prison as it emerged a number of oldsections of the facility were riddled with the deadly fibres.

According to the report, using question time in Parliament toraise the issue, shadow corrective services minister Paul Papaliasaid WorkSafe had found the old units posed a safety risk withunstable asbestos in the ceilings that required a completeevacuation of each unit for the works.

The report said he challenged Corrective Services Minister JoeFrancis to detail how the work could be done when the prison wasat capacity and housing juveniles from the Banksia Hill detentioncentre in two newer units after the January riot.

Mr Francis said Hakea prisoners would be moved out of their cellsto facilitate the asbestos removal works after the juvenilesreturned to Banksia Hill, the report related.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Illegal Action Costs Biz Owner GBP7,200--------------------------------------------------------The Cornish Guardian reported that a stable owner and agriculturalengineer have been ordered to pay GBP7,200 in fines and costs fora series of offences involving the storage and attempted illegaldisposal of asbestos.

According to the report, magistrates at Bodmin heard how inFebruary 2012 Catherine Perkins obtained planning permission for anew equestrian development at Bears Farm, St Giles on the Heath,near Launceston. A planning condition was that two large disusedchicken sheds be demolished to make way for the scheme and allredundant materials be cleared from the site. Perkins was told toregister the site as a producer of hazardous waste and advised touse a registered asbestos removal company.

The report said she registered as a producer of hazardous wasteand stated the 4.5 tonnes of asbestos would be placed in alockable skip before being taken to landfill for disposal. Thequantity of asbestos was estimated at 4.5 tonnes. But whenEnvironment Agency officers visited the farm, they found asbestossheets stacked within one of the buildings and the site in a"generally messy" state.

On August Bank Holiday Monday, 2012, the agency received a reportof asbestos being loaded onto a tractor and trailer at Bears Farm,the report related. The tractor and trailer were later found atTrevoulter Farm, Poundstock, near Bude owned by agriculturalengineer, Graham Pluess. There were approximately 120 asbestossheets on the trailer, only partially covered by a tarpaulin.

According to the report, Perkins said that she arranged for Pluessto take the waste away. Pluess admitted organising the removal ofasbestos roofing from Bear Farm to Trevoulter Farm. He claimed theconsignment was only 1.5 tonnes but it weighed more than fivetonnes.

"People should not underestimate the risks of bonded asbestos andmust ensure this hazardous material is disposed of responsibly byconsigning it to a registered and suitably qualified wastecarrier," Philip Siddall for the Environment Agency who broughtthe case, told the news agency.

Perkins was fined GBP700 and ordered to pay GBP1,500 costs afterpleading guilty to two offences under the Environmental ProtectionAct 1990 and the Hazardous Waste Regulations 2005, the reportrelated. Pluess was fined GBP3,500 and ordered to pay GBP1,500costs after pleading guilty to three offences under the same acts.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hospital Renovation Halted for Fibro Removal-------------------------------------------------------------Attorney General Lisa Madigan on April 18 announced an agreedorder to halt renovation at a hospital and hotel building onChicago's North Side until asbestos contamination is cleaned up.The City of Chicago has joined Madigan's office in seeking theemergency legal action.

Cook County Judge Neil Cohen has entered an agreed order thatMadigan's office filed with defendants Zidan Management Group,Inc., Dubai, Inc. and Somerset Place Realty, LLC. The agreedinterim order requires the defendants to cease all asbestosremoval and to take measures to prevent further release ofasbestos by posting notices at every entrance to the structure andto bar unauthorized access to minimize the threat to public healthand the environment. In addition, the defendants must present aproject design plan for approval by Madigan's office, Illinois EPAand the City of Chicago for the removal of asbestos andremediation of contamination caused.

The Illinois EPA referred the matter to Madigan's office in April,noting that a City of Chicago inspector observed asbestos had beenimproperly and illegally removed on the north side of the nine-story building at 5009 N. Sheridan Road. In addition, workers wereobserved wearing only paper respirators and were not dressedproperly for asbestos removal. Workers were removing pipeinsulation, tile and mastic containing asbestos without enclosuresand without following the proper wetting procedures.

"There is no known safe level of exposure to asbestos," saidMadigan. "Unfortunately, careless mishandling of this dangeroussubstance posed a health threat. This legal action will ensure theworkers take appropriate precautions and the contractorseffectively clean up the location."

Joined by city legal officials, Madigan's office also announced aneight-count complaint against the three defendants allegingsubstantial danger to the environment, air pollution, violation ofasbestos inspection, emission control and disposal procedures, andviolations regarding state and local notification of asbestosremoval. A status hearing has been set for May 21, 2013.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Oil Company Employee Dies of Mesothelioma-----------------------------------------------------------------Cornish Guardian reported that an 80-year-old man died decadesafter being exposed to asbestos while working for an oil company,an inquest has heard.

According to the report, Ronald Davies, from Kilhallon in Par,became ill in December 2010 and was told he had a tumour thefollowing Christmas Eve. He underwent a biopsy on New Year's Eveand began radiotherapy treatment in January 2011. But a CT scan inAugust 2011 showed progression of the tumour. He died a yearlater, on August 27, 2012. Cornwall Coroner Emma Carlyon foundthat Mr Davies died of a mesothelioma as the result of asbestosexposure. He had worked for Shell UK oil refinery in Essex.

The report related that during his career he travelled all overthe world, including to Sudan and Singapore, but took earlyretirement in 1983 at the age of 51. He and wife Patricia Daviesmoved to Cornwall in 1984. She said in a statement read at theinquest on April 5, that he had been evacuated to Polgooth duringthe war. Dr Carlyon concluded that Mr Davies died from anindustrial disease.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale orpublication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronicre-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without priorwritten permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed tobe reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered viae-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the samefirm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereofare $25 each. For subscription information, contactPeter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-241-8200.